BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

511 results for “condonation of delay”+ Penaltyclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai675Delhi511Chennai487Pune396Ahmedabad393Supreme Court349Jaipur338Kolkata292Hyderabad254Bangalore231Surat206Indore171Chandigarh170Raipur145Rajkot133Nagpur132Lucknow128Cochin125Visakhapatnam105Cuttack95Amritsar74Patna72Agra57Guwahati40Ranchi30Panaji26Dehradun24Jabalpur23Jodhpur19Allahabad15Varanasi5

Key Topics

Penalty72Addition to Income51Section 271(1)(c)50Section 234E42Condonation of Delay41Limitation/Time-bar35Section 14725Section 143(3)24Section 68

ACIT, CC-14, DELHI vs. LAKSHYA CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 181/DEL/2021[2005-06]Status: HeardITAT Delhi22 Jan 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

For Appellant: Shri Lalit Mohan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT- DR
Section 153ASection 253Section 5

delay condonation application is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal also stands dismissed as time barred. 12. For the sake of completeness, even on merits, the appeal of the Revenue has no legs to stand. The basis of the addition reads as under: “During the year the assessee had given advance of Rs.3,28,OO,000/- as advance to six companies

SH. RAJ KUMAR CHAUDHARY,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-34(5), DELHI

Showing 1–20 of 511 · Page 1 of 26

...
23
Section 25021
Section 14420
Natural Justice20

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 3670/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2018-19] Shri Raj Kumar Chaudhary, Income Tax Officer, C-243, Sector-3, Dsidc Ward-34(5), Indl. Area Bawana, Vs Delhi. New Delhi-11003. Pan- Aewpk1980K Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2018-19] Shri Raj Kumar Chaudhary, Income Tax Officer, C-243, Sector-3, Dsidc Ward-34(5), Indl. Area Bawana, Vs Delhi. New Delhi-11003. Pan- Aewpk1980K Assessee Revenue

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 249(3)Section 271A

condoning the delay for both the appeals (the delay in respect of penalty appeal was of 64 days) is reproduced

SH. RAJ KUMAR CHAUDHARY,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-34(5), DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 3671/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2018-19] Shri Raj Kumar Chaudhary, Income Tax Officer, C-243, Sector-3, Dsidc Ward-34(5), Indl. Area Bawana, Vs Delhi. New Delhi-11003. Pan- Aewpk1980K Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2018-19] Shri Raj Kumar Chaudhary, Income Tax Officer, C-243, Sector-3, Dsidc Ward-34(5), Indl. Area Bawana, Vs Delhi. New Delhi-11003. Pan- Aewpk1980K Assessee Revenue

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 249(3)Section 271A

condoning the delay for both the appeals (the delay in respect of penalty appeal was of 64 days) is reproduced

MS. KENZO INTERNATIONAL,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 43(1), DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 3274/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Before Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No. 3274/Del/2024, (A.Y.2015-16)

Section 143(1)

condoning the delay thereon. It is not in dispute that there was a delay in filing of appeal by the assessee by 1081 days. But we find that assessee has duly explained the circumstances under which a decision was taken for not preferring any appeal. We also find that the Chartered Accountant who advised the assessee has also filed

PME POWER SOLUTIONS INDIA LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 242/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139(9)Section 140ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 249(4)(a)Section 271(1)(c)Section 276C(2)

condone the delay in removing the defects by the assessee u/s 139(9) and consider such returns as valid. 3. In pending cases as on date, where the defect specified u/s 139(9) of the Act has not been rectified by the assessee, the AD would be required to immediately initiate proceedings under section 144 of the Act by issuing

PME POWER SOLUTIONS INDIA LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 249/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139(9)Section 140ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 249(4)(a)Section 271(1)(c)Section 276C(2)

condone the delay in removing the defects by the assessee u/s 139(9) and consider such returns as valid. 3. In pending cases as on date, where the defect specified u/s 139(9) of the Act has not been rectified by the assessee, the AD would be required to immediately initiate proceedings under section 144 of the Act by issuing

MEDSAVE HEALTH INSURANCE TPA LIMITED ,DELHI vs. ACIT,CPC TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1016/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Delhi29 Mar 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri N.K. Choudhry

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Bansal, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 154Section 194Section 194JSection 200ASection 201Section 250Section 271C

penalty under section 271C." 6.2 The appellant company was one of the petitioners in Writ Petition (Civil), No. 121 of 2010 filed before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in January 2010 challenging the Circular No. 8/2009 issued by CBDT. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi passed an interim order that: “in the meantime no 8/2009 dated

VINAY KUMAR SINGH,NOIDA vs. ITO WARD 5(2)5, GAUTAM BUDHA NAGAR

In the result, both these appeals are allowed for statistical

ITA 6684/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.6683 & 6684/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 बनाम Vinay Kumar Singh, Income Tax Officer, D-34, Sector-41, Noida, Vs. Ward 5(2)(5), Uttar Pradesh 201301, India. Gautam Budh Nagar, Pan No.Afpps6516P Noida, Uttar Pradesh. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 250Section 5

delay should be condoned and the appeal of ITA 6683 should be adjudicated by the Ld. CIT(A). The matter is remanded back accordingly. 5. Since the quantum appeal has been remanded back to the file of Ld. CIT(A), hence, the penalty

VINAY KUMAR SINGH,NOIDA vs. ITO WARD 5(2)(5), GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR

In the result, both these appeals are allowed for statistical

ITA 6683/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.6683 & 6684/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 बनाम Vinay Kumar Singh, Income Tax Officer, D-34, Sector-41, Noida, Vs. Ward 5(2)(5), Uttar Pradesh 201301, India. Gautam Budh Nagar, Pan No.Afpps6516P Noida, Uttar Pradesh. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 250Section 5

delay should be condoned and the appeal of ITA 6683 should be adjudicated by the Ld. CIT(A). The matter is remanded back accordingly. 5. Since the quantum appeal has been remanded back to the file of Ld. CIT(A), hence, the penalty

AMRIK SINGH (THROUGH HIS LR),GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, WARD 1(5), GHAZIABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1750/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Mr. Sankalp Malik, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 148ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271D

penalty u/s 271D of the Act. ITA No. 1750 & 1751/Del/2023 Smt Kamalpreet Singh 3. At the outset, we find that there is delay in filing of appeal of 1670 days. The legal heir of the assessee had explained in the delay condonation

AMRIK SINGH (THROUGH HIS LR),GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, WARD 1(5), GHAZIABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1751/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Mr. Sankalp Malik, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 148ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271D

penalty u/s 271D of the Act. ITA No. 1750 & 1751/Del/2023 Smt Kamalpreet Singh 3. At the outset, we find that there is delay in filing of appeal of 1670 days. The legal heir of the assessee had explained in the delay condonation

ANIL JAIN ,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee captioned above is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1192/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year 2011-12

For Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr.DR
Section 144Section 147Section 249(2)Section 249(3)

condone the delay and thus declined to proceed in the matter. 3.1 Section 249(2) of the Act contemplates that appeal shall be presented within 30 days from the date of service of notice of demand relating to assessment or penalty

PASCHION RESTAURANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , GHAZIABAD

In the result all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 4331/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalita No. 4331 To 4334/Del/2025 [Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15]

Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234ESection 250

condonation of delay. Admittedly assessee was filing its TDS quarterly statements on regular basis and also visiting the TDS portal on regular basis however, has not aware of levy of passing the orders u/s 200A of the Act imposing the late fee penalty

PASCHION RESTAURANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GHAZIABAD

In the result all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 4332/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalita No. 4331 To 4334/Del/2025 [Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15]

Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234ESection 250

condonation of delay. Admittedly assessee was filing its TDS quarterly statements on regular basis and also visiting the TDS portal on regular basis however, has not aware of levy of passing the orders u/s 200A of the Act imposing the late fee penalty

PASCHION RESTAURANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSION OF INCOME TAX, GHAZIABAD

In the result all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 4333/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalita No. 4331 To 4334/Del/2025 [Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15]

Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234ESection 250

condonation of delay. Admittedly assessee was filing its TDS quarterly statements on regular basis and also visiting the TDS portal on regular basis however, has not aware of levy of passing the orders u/s 200A of the Act imposing the late fee penalty

PASCHION RESTAURANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GHAZIABAD

In the result all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 4334/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalita No. 4331 To 4334/Del/2025 [Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15]

Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234ESection 250

condonation of delay. Admittedly assessee was filing its TDS quarterly statements on regular basis and also visiting the TDS portal on regular basis however, has not aware of levy of passing the orders u/s 200A of the Act imposing the late fee penalty

ESSCON INTEGRATED SECURITY SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-8(1), DELHI

In the result, appeals in ITA

ITA 368/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 270ASection 272A(1)(d)

condoning the delay. It is observed that, the Ld. CIT(A) while dismissing the Appeals on delay in latches, has not disputed or controverted the fact of non-receipt of the notice during the penalty

ESSCON INTEGRATED SECURITY SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-8(1), DELHI

In the result, appeals in ITA

ITA 369/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 270ASection 272A(1)(d)

condoning the delay. It is observed that, the Ld. CIT(A) while dismissing the Appeals on delay in latches, has not disputed or controverted the fact of non-receipt of the notice during the penalty

ESSCON INTEGRATED SECURITY SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-8(1), DELHI

In the result, appeals in ITA

ITA 367/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 270ASection 272A(1)(d)

condoning the delay. It is observed that, the Ld. CIT(A) while dismissing the Appeals on delay in latches, has not disputed or controverted the fact of non-receipt of the notice during the penalty

PASCHION RESTAURANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GHAZIABAD

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4335/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Years: 2013-14]

Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234ESection 250

penalty u/s 234E of the Act was come to its knowledge when the recovery notice was served on its bank. It is stated by assessee that when the assessee filed rectification application and approached the AO, it was advised to file the appeal thus the assessee had filed the appeal before CIT(A) with the request for condonation of delay