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.

90 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 10A(2)(i)clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai96Delhi90Mumbai73Hyderabad60Kolkata57Ahmedabad51Raipur44Bangalore44Pune39Jaipur37Visakhapatnam14Chandigarh11Rajkot9Cochin8Surat7Amritsar5Cuttack5Guwahati5Lucknow5Nagpur4Patna4Jodhpur3Agra3Calcutta2Telangana2Varanasi2Indore2Karnataka2Allahabad1Jabalpur1SC1Orissa1

Key Topics

Section 234E100Section 15499Section 200A75Section 12A53Section 10A51Section 80I45Section 80G31Deduction28Section 10B27

MR. NIKHIL SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1248/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Aug 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishimr. Nikhil Sawhney Acit, 17 – Sunder Nagar, Central Circle, Vs. New Delhi – 110 003. Noida. Pan: Aaups0222Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143

condone the delay admitting the appeal of the assessee and proceed to decide the issue on merits. 08. Facts of case in a narrow compass shows that assessee filed his return of income on 31 August 2012 declaring total income of Rs. 167,09,146 which was subsequently revised on 25th of March 2014 declaring same

M/S. GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,NEW DELHI vs. CIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Showing 1–20 of 90 · Page 1 of 5

Rectification u/s 15427
Addition to Income27
TDS25
ITA 455/DEL/2016[]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Sept 2016

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaghaziabad Development Authority Vs Commissioner Of Income C/O M/S Rra Tax India, Tax, D-28, South Extension, Part-1, Ghaziabad. New Delhi. Aaalg0072C

Section 12ASection 12A(1)Section 154

2. Refusing to condone delay can result in meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and Page 8 of 12 ITA No. 455/D/16 Ghaziabad Development Authority cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest then can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. 3. “Every

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NUTECH INFORMATION SYSTEMS (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2164/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.D. Agarwal & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

For Appellant: Shri P. DAM Kanunjna , Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kishore, CA
Section 10ASection 10A(1)Section 10A(2)(ii)Section 10A(2)(iii)Section 10A(3)Section 10BSection 2

2 of sec 10A. vii. As per Section 10A(4), deduction under section 10A is allowable in proportion to export turnover and domestic turnover. In the instant case from the audit report, 5 invoices and certificate of foreign inward remittance it is evident that there is no domestic sale and the entire sale proceeds of Rs.85.96 lakhs represent exports

PR. COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX vs. E-FUNDS INTERNATIONAL INDIA PVT. LTD.

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/607/2015HC Delhi06 Oct 2015
Section 10ASection 115Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 260ASection 80Section 80H

delay in re-filing the respective appeals is condoned. 2. The applications are disposed of. ITA No. 607/2015 & 608/2015 3. These two appeals by the Revenue are under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („Act‟). 4. At the outset, Mr. Kamal Sawhney, learned Senior Standing counsel for the Revenue states that page 6 of the memorandum of appeal

PR. COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX vs. E-FUNDS INTERNATIONAL INDIA PVT. LTD.

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/608/2015HC Delhi06 Oct 2015
Section 10ASection 115Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 260ASection 80Section 80H

delay in re-filing the respective appeals is condoned. 2. The applications are disposed of. ITA No. 607/2015 & 608/2015 3. These two appeals by the Revenue are under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („Act‟). 4. At the outset, Mr. Kamal Sawhney, learned Senior Standing counsel for the Revenue states that page 6 of the memorandum of appeal

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7 vs. SUMITOMO CORPORATION INDIA (P) LTD.

ITA/52/2023HC Delhi02 Sept 2024

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

10A of the Act is restored to the file of the TPO/ AO, the another issues relating to corporate matters should also be decided by the TPO/ AO afresh in accordance with law after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 21. As regards to the issues raised on the transfer pricing all matters

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MICROSOFT INDIA ( R & D) PVT. LTD.

ITA/993/2019HC Delhi02 Mar 2020

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

10A of the Act is restored to the file of the TPO/ AO, the another issues relating to corporate matters should also be decided by the TPO/ AO afresh in accordance with law after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 21. As regards to the issues raised on the transfer pricing all matters

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.

ITA/995/2019HC Delhi02 Mar 2020

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

10A of the Act is restored to the file of the TPO/ AO, the another issues relating to corporate matters should also be decided by the TPO/ AO afresh in accordance with law after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 21. As regards to the issues raised on the transfer pricing all matters

APTIVE COMPONENTS INDIA P.LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S DELPHI AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS PVT. LTD.),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-3(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in respect of ground no

ITA 1129/DEL/2020[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2005-06] M/S Aptiv Components India Deputy Commissioner Of Income Private Limited Tax, (Formerly Known As M/S Delphi Vs Circle-3(1), Automotive Systems Pvt. Ltd.) Room No.-380B, C.R. Building P-24, Green Part Extn., Delhi- I.P. Estate, 110016. Delhi-110002. Pan- Aaacd0226E Assessee Revenue

Section 10ASection 143(3)

Delay condoned. 2. We have heard Mr. Dhruv Agarwal, learned Senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner-Department. 3. The issue is whether claim of certain expenses are to be taken into account to claim statutory disallowance under section 40(a) of the Income-tax Act. 4. The said issued is covered in the Judgment of this Court

DCIT CIRCLE 4(2), NEW DELHI vs. CANON INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, to sum up and conclude:

ITA 1038/DEL/2023[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B. Basanta, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 254Section 92C

Section 10A and the set-off of brought-forward losses, hence, there was no Indian tax liability against which the foreign taxes withheld in Japan can be credited. 14. We find that while the Mumbai Tribunal in the Bank of India case grappled with the question of following a non-jurisdictional High Court being not binding judicial precedent, and arrived

CANON INDIA PVT. LTD,GURUGRAM vs. NEAC, DELHI

In the result, to sum up and conclude:

ITA 585/DEL/2021[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B. Basanta, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 254Section 92C

Section 10A and the set-off of brought-forward losses, hence, there was no Indian tax liability against which the foreign taxes withheld in Japan can be credited. 14. We find that while the Mumbai Tribunal in the Bank of India case grappled with the question of following a non-jurisdictional High Court being not binding judicial precedent, and arrived

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL-1) vs. LATE SHRI SUDHIR SAREEN

ITA/284/2015HC Delhi06 Jul 2015

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Section 375

Section 376 of IPC, the husband would be protected because of MRE. It cannot be the State's policy or in its interest to prosecute only some rapists and not those who are married to the victim in such cases. 46.1. MRE grants blanket immunity to sexual acts enumerated in clauses (a) to (d) of Section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) DELHI vs. SERVANTS OF PEOPLE SOCIETY

ITA/26/2022HC Delhi11 Feb 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA

Section 18 and explained its significance in the following words: ―22. The significance of Section 18 of the Act can be understood in the light of the above provisions. Section 18 provides for provisional assessment of duty in cases specified in sub-section (1) of the section. Clause (c) of sub-section (1) deals with cases where the importer

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) DELHI vs. SERVANTS OF PEOPLE SOCIETY

ITA/27/2022HC Delhi11 Feb 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA

Section 18 and explained its significance in the following words: ―22. The significance of Section 18 of the Act can be understood in the light of the above provisions. Section 18 provides for provisional assessment of duty in cases specified in sub-section (1) of the section. Clause (c) of sub-section (1) deals with cases where the importer

DCIT, HISAR vs. M/S SYNERGY WASTE MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD.,, HISAR

In the result, all the five captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5704/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh Goyal, CA &For Respondent: Ms Kajal Singh, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 119Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 170Section 170(1)Section 44ASection 801ASection 80I

2) The turnover of the company has also increased from 2.87 Crores in 2005-06 to 11.91 Crores in 2011-12 due to Joint efforts of all its management, employees and all other related persons. 3) During the year under consideration also the assessee got all its accounts audited before the due date. The final Computation of Income was also

DCIT, HISAR vs. M/S SYNERGY WASTE MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD.,, HISAR

In the result, all the five captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5701/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh Goyal, CA &For Respondent: Ms Kajal Singh, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 119Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 170Section 170(1)Section 44ASection 801ASection 80I

2) The turnover of the company has also increased from 2.87 Crores in 2005-06 to 11.91 Crores in 2011-12 due to Joint efforts of all its management, employees and all other related persons. 3) During the year under consideration also the assessee got all its accounts audited before the due date. The final Computation of Income was also

DCIT, HISAR vs. M/S SYNERGY WASTE MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD.,, HISAR

In the result, all the five captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5703/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh Goyal, CA &For Respondent: Ms Kajal Singh, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 119Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 170Section 170(1)Section 44ASection 801ASection 80I

2) The turnover of the company has also increased from 2.87 Crores in 2005-06 to 11.91 Crores in 2011-12 due to Joint efforts of all its management, employees and all other related persons. 3) During the year under consideration also the assessee got all its accounts audited before the due date. The final Computation of Income was also

DCIT, HISAR vs. M/S SYNERGY WASTE MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD.,, HISAR

In the result, all the five captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5702/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh Goyal, CA &For Respondent: Ms Kajal Singh, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 119Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 170Section 170(1)Section 44ASection 801ASection 80I

2) The turnover of the company has also increased from 2.87 Crores in 2005-06 to 11.91 Crores in 2011-12 due to Joint efforts of all its management, employees and all other related persons. 3) During the year under consideration also the assessee got all its accounts audited before the due date. The final Computation of Income was also

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BENGALURU-5, BENGALURU vs. M/S NTT DATA GLOBAL DELIVERY SERVICES LTD.

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

ITA - 392 / 2022HC Delhi12 Oct 2022

Bench: The Supreme Court & The Said Issue Is Pending Adjudication In Civil Appeal No.9175 Of 2018. 4. Having Heard Learned Counsel For The Appellant, This Court Finds That The Issue Raised In The Present Appeal Is No Longer Res Integra. In Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1 Vs. American Express India Pvt. Ltd.

Section 10Section 10ASection 10BSection 80ASection 80I

delay in re- filing the appeal is condoned. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. ITA No.392/2022 1. Present Income Tax Appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 20th December, 2018 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) in ITA No.5196/Del./2014 for the Assessment Year 2009-10. 2022:DHC:4235-DB ITA No.392/2022 Page 2 of 4 2

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BENGALURU-5, BENGALURU vs. M/S NTT DATA GLOBAL DELIVERY SERVICES LTD.

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

ITA/392/2022HC Delhi12 Oct 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

Section 10Section 10ASection 10BSection 80ASection 80I

delay in re- filing the appeal is condoned. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. ITA No.392/2022 1. Present Income Tax Appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 20th December, 2018 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) in ITA No.5196/Del./2014 for the Assessment Year 2009-10. This is a digitally signed Judgement. NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/004235