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.

546 results for “condonation of delay”+ Reassessmentclear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai639Delhi546Mumbai494Kolkata387Ahmedabad248Bangalore183Jaipur165Hyderabad147Pune141Raipur129Surat88Amritsar85Chandigarh85Cuttack82Indore73Visakhapatnam68Patna55Rajkot42Nagpur40Cochin39Lucknow38Karnataka19Agra16Guwahati13Dehradun13Panaji12Telangana11SC9Allahabad8Calcutta8Varanasi8Jodhpur8Ranchi5Jabalpur5Orissa4Himachal Pradesh2

Key Topics

Section 148102Section 147102Addition to Income74Section 6851Reassessment46Section 143(3)41Section 153C39Section 143(2)34Condonation of Delay31

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

condone the delay and the appeal is admitted for hearing. 3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellant-assessee is an individual and was during the year engaged in the business of Manufacturing of Machinery and machinery Parts in the name and style of M/s Titan Hydraulics (India) and also engaged in the business of Manufacturing

Showing 1–20 of 546 · Page 1 of 28

...
Section 153A30
Section 148A28
Limitation/Time-bar24

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 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

condone the delay and the appeal is admitted for hearing. 3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellant-assessee is an individual and was during the year engaged in the business of Manufacturing of Machinery and machinery Parts in the name and style of M/s Titan Hydraulics (India) and also engaged in the business of Manufacturing

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S ALANKAR SAPHIRE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

ITA 2606/DEL/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2020AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

reassessment proceedings has failed to furnish any evidence of the source from which this expenditure was incurred. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence i.e., source of the expenditure, the A.O. made the addition of Rs. 82,685/-. 5.2. The A.O. further noted that during assessment year under appeal, the assessee-company has issued share capital of Rs.2

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S PEGASUS SOFTECH PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

ITA 2610/DEL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

reassessment proceedings has failed to furnish any evidence of the source from which this expenditure was incurred. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence i.e., source of the expenditure, the A.O. made the addition of Rs. 82,685/-. 5.2. The A.O. further noted that during assessment year under appeal, the assessee-company has issued share capital of Rs.2

M/S. ALANKAR SAPHIRE DEVELOPERS,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

ITA 2277/DEL/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2020AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

reassessment proceedings has failed to furnish any evidence of the source from which this expenditure was incurred. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence i.e., source of the expenditure, the A.O. made the addition of Rs. 82,685/-. 5.2. The A.O. further noted that during assessment year under appeal, the assessee-company has issued share capital of Rs.2

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S WORLDWIDE REALTORS PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

ITA 2601/DEL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

reassessment proceedings has failed to furnish any evidence of the source from which this expenditure was incurred. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence i.e., source of the expenditure, the A.O. made the addition of Rs. 82,685/-. 5.2. The A.O. further noted that during assessment year under appeal, the assessee-company has issued share capital of Rs.2

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S WITNESS CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

ITA 2603/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

reassessment proceedings has failed to furnish any evidence of the source from which this expenditure was incurred. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence i.e., source of the expenditure, the A.O. made the addition of Rs. 82,685/-. 5.2. The A.O. further noted that during assessment year under appeal, the assessee-company has issued share capital of Rs.2

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S VINMAN ESTATES PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

ITA 1980/DEL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

reassessment proceedings has failed to furnish any evidence of the source from which this expenditure was incurred. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence i.e., source of the expenditure, the A.O. made the addition of Rs. 82,685/-. 5.2. The A.O. further noted that during assessment year under appeal, the assessee-company has issued share capital of Rs.2

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S ALANKAR SAPHIRE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

ITA 2608/DEL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

reassessment proceedings has failed to furnish any evidence of the source from which this expenditure was incurred. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence i.e., source of the expenditure, the A.O. made the addition of Rs. 82,685/-. 5.2. The A.O. further noted that during assessment year under appeal, the assessee-company has issued share capital of Rs.2

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S ALANKAR SAPHIRE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

ITA 2607/DEL/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

reassessment proceedings has failed to furnish any evidence of the source from which this expenditure was incurred. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence i.e., source of the expenditure, the A.O. made the addition of Rs. 82,685/-. 5.2. The A.O. further noted that during assessment year under appeal, the assessee-company has issued share capital of Rs.2

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S WITNESS BUILDERS PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

ITA 1971/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

reassessment proceedings has failed to furnish any evidence of the source from which this expenditure was incurred. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence i.e., source of the expenditure, the A.O. made the addition of Rs. 82,685/-. 5.2. The A.O. further noted that during assessment year under appeal, the assessee-company has issued share capital of Rs.2

M/S VINMAN ESTATES (P) LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

ITA 1589/DEL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

reassessment proceedings has failed to furnish any evidence of the source from which this expenditure was incurred. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence i.e., source of the expenditure, the A.O. made the addition of Rs. 82,685/-. 5.2. The A.O. further noted that during assessment year under appeal, the assessee-company has issued share capital of Rs.2

M/S. PEGASUS SOFTECH (P) LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

ITA 2274/DEL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

reassessment proceedings has failed to furnish any evidence of the source from which this expenditure was incurred. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence i.e., source of the expenditure, the A.O. made the addition of Rs. 82,685/-. 5.2. The A.O. further noted that during assessment year under appeal, the assessee-company has issued share capital of Rs.2

M/S. WORLDWIDE REALTORS (P) LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

ITA 2280/DEL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

reassessment proceedings has failed to furnish any evidence of the source from which this expenditure was incurred. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence i.e., source of the expenditure, the A.O. made the addition of Rs. 82,685/-. 5.2. The A.O. further noted that during assessment year under appeal, the assessee-company has issued share capital of Rs.2

M/S. ALANKAR SAPHIRE DEVELOPERS,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

ITA 2278/DEL/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

reassessment proceedings has failed to furnish any evidence of the source from which this expenditure was incurred. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence i.e., source of the expenditure, the A.O. made the addition of Rs. 82,685/-. 5.2. The A.O. further noted that during assessment year under appeal, the assessee-company has issued share capital of Rs.2

M/S. ALANKAR SAPHIRE DEVELOPERS,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

ITA 2279/DEL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

reassessment proceedings has failed to furnish any evidence of the source from which this expenditure was incurred. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence i.e., source of the expenditure, the A.O. made the addition of Rs. 82,685/-. 5.2. The A.O. further noted that during assessment year under appeal, the assessee-company has issued share capital of Rs.2

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. BELIEVE DEVELOPERS & PROMOTERS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

ITA 6444/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

reassessment proceedings has failed to furnish any evidence of the source from which this expenditure was incurred. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence i.e., source of the expenditure, the A.O. made the addition of Rs. 82,685/-. 5.2. The A.O. further noted that during assessment year under appeal, the assessee-company has issued share capital of Rs.2

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S GEE GEE BUILDERS PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

ITA 1975/DEL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

reassessment proceedings has failed to furnish any evidence of the source from which this expenditure was incurred. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence i.e., source of the expenditure, the A.O. made the addition of Rs. 82,685/-. 5.2. The A.O. further noted that during assessment year under appeal, the assessee-company has issued share capital of Rs.2

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S NAGESHWAR REALTORS PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

ITA 1972/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

reassessment proceedings has failed to furnish any evidence of the source from which this expenditure was incurred. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence i.e., source of the expenditure, the A.O. made the addition of Rs. 82,685/-. 5.2. The A.O. further noted that during assessment year under appeal, the assessee-company has issued share capital of Rs.2

M/S KING BUILDCON (P) LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

ITA 3081/DEL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

reassessment proceedings has failed to furnish any evidence of the source from which this expenditure was incurred. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence i.e., source of the expenditure, the A.O. made the addition of Rs. 82,685/-. 5.2. The A.O. further noted that during assessment year under appeal, the assessee-company has issued share capital of Rs.2