Search: condonation of delay | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

736 results for “condonation of delay”+ Reopening of Assessmentclear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai932 Mumbai814 Delhi736 Kolkata464 Pune429 Ahmedabad392 Bangalore244 Jaipur197 Hyderabad181 Surat160 Karnataka123 Visakhapatnam122 Chandigarh114 Indore90 Rajkot87 Raipur77 Nagpur71 Patna67 Lucknow66 Agra57 Cuttack57 Calcutta50 Amritsar45 Guwahati26 Cochin21 Jodhpur18 Panaji15 Dehradun14 Varanasi12 Jabalpur11 Allahabad7 Ranchi6 SC6 Telangana5 Orissa3 Himachal Pradesh2 Andhra Pradesh1 A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 14788 Section 14875 Section 143(3)61 Addition to Income60 Section 153C49 Section 6845 Section 234E35 Section 143(2)32 Condonation of Delay

S.N. ARORA/SAPRA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 23(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee for the A

ITA 4252/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2020AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, C.A. And Shri Satyajeet Goel, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. D.R

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 68

condone the delay in filing the appeal. 7.1. Learned Counsel for the Assessee referred to PB-4 which is reasons for reopening of the assessment

S.N. ARORA/SAPRA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 23(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee for the A

Showing 1–20 of 736 · Page 1 of 37

...

29

Reopening of Assessment27

ITA 4251/DEL/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2020AY 2006-07

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

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, C.A. And Shri Satyajeet Goel, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. D.R

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 68

condone the delay in filing the appeal. 7.1. Learned Counsel for the Assessee referred to PB-4 which is reasons for reopening of the assessment

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAM PORTFOLIO PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 6219/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 6219/Del/2015 (A.Y 2009-10)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate; &For Respondent: Shri H. K. Chowdhary

Section 147Section 250Section 4

reopening is based on the belief of the Assessing Officer that the sale proceeds should be taxed as the business income and not as capital gain. This subject matter was not a part of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) having entertained only part of the assessee's appeal, the principle of merger as flowing from

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAM PORTFOLIO PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 6220/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 6219/Del/2015 (A.Y 2009-10)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate; &For Respondent: Shri H. K. Chowdhary

Section 147Section 250Section 4

reopening is based on the belief of the Assessing Officer that the sale proceeds should be taxed as the business income and not as capital gain. This subject matter was not a part of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) having entertained only part of the assessee's appeal, the principle of merger as flowing from

SANATAN DHARAM SHIKSHA SAMITTEE,HARYANA vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS), ROHTAK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 871/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं././././I.T.A No.871/Del/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Sanatan Dharam Shiksha Vs. Income Tax Officer Samittee, (Exemption), Rohtak. C/S. S. D. Public School, Narwana, Distt. Jind, Haryana- 126116. [Pan: Aaets 6172 P] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

condoned the delay of 41 days in filing of appeal and allow the appeal be admitted for decision on merit. 6. Grounds raised by the Assessee read as under: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and Ld. AO is bad both

RAGHUBIR SINGH PUNIA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 30(8), NEW DELHI., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as

ITA 2252/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2252/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 127Section 148Section 151Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

assessment proceedings and also first appellate proceedings the assessee has 4 I.T.A.No.2252/Del/2024 always complied with all the notices and submitted the relevant submissions and the details as and when required. Therefore, the Ld. Counsel submits that the delay in filing the appeal is neither willful nor wanton but for the circumstances explained above and, therefore, he prayed for condoning

BRIJESH CHARITABLE TRUST,PANIPAT vs. ACIT, PANIPAT

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 2783/DEL/2012[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2022AY 1993-94

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95 With Assessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95

Section 144Section 154

reopened and assessment orders were passed. Subsequently, the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, vide order dated 05.06.2009 has quashed the complaint. Thus, it was submitted that the delay in filing of appeal is, therefore, ITA Nos.2783 & 2784/Del/2012 attributable to the time taken in the collateral proceedings for the closure of the case. It was submitted that the delay

BRIJESH CHARITABLE TRUST,PANIPAT vs. ACIT, PANIPAT

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 2784/DEL/2012[1994-95]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2022AY 1994-95

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95 With Assessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95

Section 144Section 154

reopened and assessment orders were passed. Subsequently, the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, vide order dated 05.06.2009 has quashed the complaint. Thus, it was submitted that the delay in filing of appeal is, therefore, ITA Nos.2783 & 2784/Del/2012 attributable to the time taken in the collateral proceedings for the closure of the case. It was submitted that the delay

BRIJESH CHARITABLE TRUST,PANIPAT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE PANIPAT, PANIPAT

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 4666/DEL/2018[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2022AY 1993-94

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95 With Assessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95

Section 144Section 154

reopened and assessment orders were passed. Subsequently, the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, vide order dated 05.06.2009 has quashed the complaint. Thus, it was submitted that the delay in filing of appeal is, therefore, ITA Nos.2783 & 2784/Del/2012 attributable to the time taken in the collateral proceedings for the closure of the case. It was submitted that the delay

BRIJESH CHARITABLE TRUST,PANIPAT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE PANIPAT, PANIPAT

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 4667/DEL/2018[1994-95]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2022AY 1994-95

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95 With Assessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95

Section 144Section 154

reopened and assessment orders were passed. Subsequently, the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, vide order dated 05.06.2009 has quashed the complaint. Thus, it was submitted that the delay in filing of appeal is, therefore, ITA Nos.2783 & 2784/Del/2012 attributable to the time taken in the collateral proceedings for the closure of the case. It was submitted that the delay

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. CONTAINER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result ITA No. 1364/Del/2012 for AY 2007-08 filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1364/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Kirshnan, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT DR

condonation of delay. He vehemently relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 348 ITR 7, Rajasthan High Court in 304 ITR 166, Delhi High Court 287 ITR 52 and Calcutta High Court in 279 ITR 339 stating that delay is not bona fide, afterthought and an attempt to take advantage of oversight by the revenue

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S GD GOENKA PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeal of the Revenue and the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 6553/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 Vs. M/S. G.D. Goenka Pvt. Ltd., N- Acit, Circle-10(2), New Delhi 85, Connaught Place, New Delhi Pan : Aaacg0865A (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No. 79/Del/2016 (In Ita No. 6553/Del/2015) Assessment Year: 2009-10

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)

reopening of assessment and issuance of notice u/s 148 though it was bad in law. 2. That Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as in facts by not quashing the assessment which was passed in consequence to invalid notice issue u/s 148. 3. The assessee craves leave to add, alter, amend, modify or delete

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. LKG BUILDERS P. LTD., NEW DELHI

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

ITA 121/DEL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2020AY 2006-07

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

reopen the closed state of affairs.” Thus, the Rule of Finality apply in this case clearly show that legal proposition decided by the Hon’ble jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the cases of Kabul Chawla and Meeta Gutgutia (supra), have reached finality that “completed assessment can be interfered with by A.O. while making the assessments under section 153A only

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ASHUTOSH DEVELOPERS P. LTD., NEW DELHI

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

ITA 122/DEL/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2020AY 2004-05

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

reopen the closed state of affairs.” Thus, the Rule of Finality apply in this case clearly show that legal proposition decided by the Hon’ble jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the cases of Kabul Chawla and Meeta Gutgutia (supra), have reached finality that “completed assessment can be interfered with by A.O. while making the assessments under section 153A only

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S LAKSHYA CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD.,, GURGAON

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

ITA 6431/DEL/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2020AY 2003-04

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

reopen the closed state of affairs.” Thus, the Rule of Finality apply in this case clearly show that legal proposition decided by the Hon’ble jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the cases of Kabul Chawla and Meeta Gutgutia (supra), have reached finality that “completed assessment can be interfered with by A.O. while making the assessments under section 153A only

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S LAKSHYA CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD.,, GURGAON

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

ITA 6432/DEL/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2020AY 2004-05

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

reopen the closed state of affairs.” Thus, the Rule of Finality apply in this case clearly show that legal proposition decided by the Hon’ble jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the cases of Kabul Chawla and Meeta Gutgutia (supra), have reached finality that “completed assessment can be interfered with by A.O. while making the assessments under section 153A only

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S LAKSHYA CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD.,, GURGAON

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

ITA 6433/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2020AY 2006-07

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

reopen the closed state of affairs.” Thus, the Rule of Finality apply in this case clearly show that legal proposition decided by the Hon’ble jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the cases of Kabul Chawla and Meeta Gutgutia (supra), have reached finality that “completed assessment can be interfered with by A.O. while making the assessments under section 153A only

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. LKG BUILDERS P. LTD., NEW DELHI

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

ITA 118/DEL/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2020AY 2003-04

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

reopen the closed state of affairs.” Thus, the Rule of Finality apply in this case clearly show that legal proposition decided by the Hon’ble jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the cases of Kabul Chawla and Meeta Gutgutia (supra), have reached finality that “completed assessment can be interfered with by A.O. while making the assessments under section 153A only

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. LKG BUILDERS P. LTD., NEW DELHI

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

ITA 119/DEL/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2020AY 2004-05

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

reopen the closed state of affairs.” Thus, the Rule of Finality apply in this case clearly show that legal proposition decided by the Hon’ble jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the cases of Kabul Chawla and Meeta Gutgutia (supra), have reached finality that “completed assessment can be interfered with by A.O. while making the assessments under section 153A only

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

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

ITA 675/DEL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2020AY 2006-07

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

reopen the closed state of affairs.” Thus, the Rule of Finality apply in this case clearly show that legal proposition decided by the Hon’ble jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the cases of Kabul Chawla and Meeta Gutgutia (supra), have reached finality that “completed assessment can be interfered with by A.O. while making the assessments under section 153A only