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.

108 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 114clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai155Chennai133Karnataka128Delhi108Kolkata78Bangalore57Hyderabad53Jaipur49Ahmedabad45Calcutta36Chandigarh35Panaji35Lucknow22Pune18Cochin16Indore12Cuttack12Varanasi10Raipur9Surat8Amritsar8Guwahati6Visakhapatnam5Allahabad5Jabalpur5Rajkot5Jodhpur4Nagpur3Agra3SC3Telangana2Andhra Pradesh1Orissa1Rajasthan1Patna1Gauhati1Dehradun1

Key Topics

Section 68110Section 43B106Section 36(1)(va)103Addition to Income81Disallowance43Section 143(1)39Section 143(3)35Section 139(1)35Section 153D

MONICA GOLD PIPES PRIVATE LIMITED,KHASRA NO. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 16(2), C R BUILDING

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3791/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.3791 & 3792/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

Section 11Section 119Section 119(2)(b)Section 260A

114 (Bombay HC) Section 119, read with section 11, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Central Board of Direct Taxes- Instructions to subordinate authorities (Condonation of delay

MONICA GOLD PIPES PRIVATE LIMITED,KHASRA NO. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 16(2), C R BUILDING

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Showing 1–20 of 108 · Page 1 of 6

33
Section 14830
Condonation of Delay23
Search & Seizure14
ITA 3792/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: Disposed
ITAT Delhi
21 Aug 2024
AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.3791 & 3792/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

Section 11Section 119Section 119(2)(b)Section 260A

114 (Bombay HC) Section 119, read with section 11, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Central Board of Direct Taxes- Instructions to subordinate authorities (Condonation of delay

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND (ICID PF TRUST),NEW DELHI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed as above

ITA 4203/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 10Section 10(21)Section 10(25)(ii)Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 154

condoning the delay in filing the present appeals. 5.1 The Ld. AR contended that Columns 13 to 16 of Part B – TI Statement of Income for The Period Ended On 31st March 2014 of the ITR 7 provides claim of exemption under section 10 of the Act. Column 13 of Part B – TI Statement of Income for The Period Ended

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND (ICID PF TRUST),NEW DELHI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed as above

ITA 4204/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 10Section 10(21)Section 10(25)(ii)Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 154

condoning the delay in filing the present appeals. 5.1 The Ld. AR contended that Columns 13 to 16 of Part B – TI Statement of Income for The Period Ended On 31st March 2014 of the ITR 7 provides claim of exemption under section 10 of the Act. Column 13 of Part B – TI Statement of Income for The Period Ended

ACIT CIRCLE 2 vs. NIIT ONLINE LEARNING LTD,

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the additional grounds of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3901/DEL/2006[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Aug 2022AY 2003-2004

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. G. C. Srivastava, Special Counsel
Section 132Section 153A

condonation of delay in filing the CO is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-4], This is a clear admission by the Director of the Assessee that they were subjected to search under Section 132 of the Act. This is an unequivocal statement and coming from a person who has the personal knowledge of the fact whether or not search

ACIT CIRCLE 2 vs. NIIT ONLINE LEARNING LTD,

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the additional grounds of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3903/DEL/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Aug 2022AY 2002-2003

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. G. C. Srivastava, Special Counsel
Section 132Section 153A

condonation of delay in filing the CO is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-4], This is a clear admission by the Director of the Assessee that they were subjected to search under Section 132 of the Act. This is an unequivocal statement and coming from a person who has the personal knowledge of the fact whether or not search

ACIT CIRCLE 2 vs. NIIT ONLINE LEARNING LTD,

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the additional grounds of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3902/DEL/2006[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Aug 2022AY 2004-2005

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. G. C. Srivastava, Special Counsel
Section 132Section 153A

condonation of delay in filing the CO is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-4], This is a clear admission by the Director of the Assessee that they were subjected to search under Section 132 of the Act. This is an unequivocal statement and coming from a person who has the personal knowledge of the fact whether or not search

MARKS CONSOLIDATED BUSINESS LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-6(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 7312/DEL/2018[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2003-04 Marks Consolidated Vs. Ito, Ward 6(2), Business Ltd., New Delhi 1497, Bhardwaj Bhawan, Wazir Nagar, Kotla , New Delhi (Pan: Aaacm8113H)

For Appellant: Sh. Mushtaq Ahmed Mir, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 253(3)Section 68

section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, forgo any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing. 2. The facts in brief are that the in this case information has been received from the Director of Income Tax (Investigation), New Delhi that the assessee has received

VSR INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED,VASANT VIHAR DELHI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NFAC

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

ITA 3154/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(3)

114/-. The case was picked up for scrutiny. The consequential assessment of the relevant year was completed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter, the ‘Act’) wherein the Assessing Officer (hereinafter, the ‘AO’) disallowed commitment charges of Rs.3,19,87,720/- and disallowed set off of brought forward losses of Rs.1,31,47,983/-. Aggrieved

MOHAMMAD ASHFAQ,MEERUT vs. ITO WARD-2(2)(2), HAPUR

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 2464/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 147

114, Citi Centre, Begum Bridge Hapur Chungi, Road, Meerut-250001 Ghaziabad-201002 PAN: AGEPA3759N Appellant Respondent Assessee by Sh. Premjit S. Kashyap, CA Revenue by Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 15/09/2025 Date of Pronouncement 19/09/2025 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM: The present appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Ld. Commissioner

DHANANJAY SANJOGTA FOUNDATION,NOIDA vs. CIT EXEMPTION, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, CIT EXEMPTION, LUCKNOW

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 2464/DEL/2024[24-25]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2025

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 147

114, Citi Centre, Begum Bridge Hapur Chungi, Road, Meerut-250001 Ghaziabad-201002 PAN: AGEPA3759N Appellant Respondent Assessee by Sh. Premjit S. Kashyap, CA Revenue by Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 15/09/2025 Date of Pronouncement 19/09/2025 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM: The present appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Ld. Commissioner

SHIVANI TAYAL,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 49(1), NEW DELHI, DELHI

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 5833/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Shivani Tayal Vs. Income Tax Officer, C-27, Shop No.9-10, Ward 49(1), Mansarovar Garden, New New Delhi Delhi Pan: Andpt8647E Appellant Respondent Assessee By Advocate Ragini Handa Revenue By Sh. Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13/06/2025 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short) Dated

Section 10(38)Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250Section 69C

condoned the delay of 10 days and should have decided the appeal on its merit. In so far as, merit is concerned. It is the case of the Assessee that the issueinvolved in the appeal is squarely covered in the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of union of India Vs. Rajiv Bansal (supra

RAJENDRA KUMAR TRIPATHI,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 56(3) DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1674/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Rajendra Kumar Tripathi Vs. Ito 341, Heritage Tower, Sawan Ward- 56 (3) Cghs Ltd. Plot No.1, Delhi Sector-3, Dwarka, Delhi-110078 Pan No.Abppt7714C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Dishant Sethi, Advocate Sh. Shyam Sunder, Advocate Respondent By Ms. Raja Rajeshwari, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing: 08/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 14/08/2024 Order Per Sudhir Kumar, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Nfac”] Vide Order Dated 12.02.2024 Pertaining To A.Y. 2019-20 & Arises Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 23.12.2019 Under Section 144/148 Of The Income Tax Act 1961 [Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’].

Section 143Section 144Section 249(3)Section 5

114, has made a distinction between delays that are trivial and cases where inordinately large delays had occurred. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that the cases of trivial delays have to be liberally considered, however the cases of inordinate delays have to be approached cautiously. The relevant portion of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2 vs. CAIRNHILL CIPEF LTD.

The appeal is dismissed as according to us, no substantial

ITA/610/2023HC Delhi07 Nov 2023

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

Section 143(2)Section 308

114 days. 3. Ms Snigdha Gautam, counsel who appears on behalf of the Digitally Signed By:PREM MOHAN CHOUDHARY Signing Date:06.12.2023 17:05:59 Signature Not Verified ITA 610/2023 Page 2 of 7 respondent/assessee, says that she would have no objection if the delay is condoned. 3.1 It is ordered accordingly. 4. The application is disposed

ARADHYA GHOSH,KOLKATA vs. DEPTUY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-67(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5210/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Shri Srinath L, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 270A

section 270A of the Act of an amount of Rs.5,21,114/-. 2 3. At the outset, ld. AR of the assessee brought to our notice that the appeal filed by the assessee before the ITAT is barred by 13 days. He submitted that an application for condonation of delay

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S GRAVITY SYSTEMS PVT. LTD., DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed while the cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5626/DEL/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Mar 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri. P. K. Bansal & Shri K.N. Charry Assessment Year:2004-05

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amrit Lal, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

condone the delay and admit the cross objection taken by the assessee for hearing. 6. In the cross objection, the assessee has taken legal issues. We, therefore, have decided to dispose of the cross objection first. 7. Ground No.3 in the cross objection taken by the assessee since not pressed stands dismissed as not pressed. 8. Grounds No.1 & 2 relate

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

DIGITE INC., USA,PUNE vs. ADIT, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, ground of appeal No.4 is dismissed

ITA 772/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. R. K. Pandaand. Sh. Kuldip Singh

Section 9Section 91

114 has held that the Court should adopt pragmatic approach. The distinction must be made between a case where there is inordinate delay and a case where the delay is of a few days. In the former case, the consideration of prejudice to the other party will be a relevant factor so the case calls for more cautious approach

DIGITE INC.,CALIFORINA vs. ADIT, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, ground of appeal No.4 is dismissed

ITA 4918/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. R. K. Pandaand. Sh. Kuldip Singh

Section 9Section 91

114 has held that the Court should adopt pragmatic approach. The distinction must be made between a case where there is inordinate delay and a case where the delay is of a few days. In the former case, the consideration of prejudice to the other party will be a relevant factor so the case calls for more cautious approach

DIGITE INC. USA,PUNE vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

Accordingly, ground of appeal No.4 is dismissed

ITA 382/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. R. K. Pandaand. Sh. Kuldip Singh

Section 9Section 91

114 has held that the Court should adopt pragmatic approach. The distinction must be made between a case where there is inordinate delay and a case where the delay is of a few days. In the former case, the consideration of prejudice to the other party will be a relevant factor so the case calls for more cautious approach