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.

195 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 14A(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai328Chennai323Kolkata283Delhi195Karnataka110Hyderabad49Bangalore40Ahmedabad39Amritsar38Pune32Lucknow20Jaipur18Chandigarh18Cuttack12Visakhapatnam12Indore11Calcutta9Guwahati6Cochin5Panaji5Varanasi4Raipur3Surat2Rajkot2SC1Allahabad1Nagpur1

Key Topics

Section 14A216Disallowance84Addition to Income61Section 153A50Condonation of Delay48Section 26332Section 143(3)30Deduction16Section 115J

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

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

Showing 1–20 of 195 · Page 1 of 10

...
13
Depreciation11
Natural Justice11
Section 3510
ITA/52/2023
HC Delhi
02 Sept 2024

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

14A) The provisions of this section shall not apply to any assessment or reassessment order passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner as provided in sub-section (12) of section 144BA.] [(14-B) The Central Government may make a scheme, by notification in the Official Gazette, for the purposes of issuance

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

14A) The provisions of this section shall not apply to any assessment or reassessment order passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner as provided in sub-section (12) of section 144BA.] [(14-B) The Central Government may make a scheme, by notification in the Official Gazette, for the purposes of issuance

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

14A) The provisions of this section shall not apply to any assessment or reassessment order passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner as provided in sub-section (12) of section 144BA.] [(14-B) The Central Government may make a scheme, by notification in the Official Gazette, for the purposes of issuance

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S GAHOI BUILDWELL PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

ITA 2703/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiita Nos. 2702, 2703, 2710/Del/2013 Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Kumar,CAFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, DR
Section 14ASection 153ASection 154Section 2(22)(e)Section 68

section 14A of the IT Act, 1961 read with clause (iii) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 8D of Income-tax Rules, 1962.” 3. At the outset cross objections filed by the assessee are barred by limitation. In the petition for condonation of delay

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S GAHOI BUILDWELL PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

ITA 2702/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiita Nos. 2702, 2703, 2710/Del/2013 Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Kumar,CAFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, DR
Section 14ASection 153ASection 154Section 2(22)(e)Section 68

section 14A of the IT Act, 1961 read with clause (iii) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 8D of Income-tax Rules, 1962.” 3. At the outset cross objections filed by the assessee are barred by limitation. In the petition for condonation of delay

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S GAHOI BUILDWELL PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

ITA 2710/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiita Nos. 2702, 2703, 2710/Del/2013 Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Kumar,CAFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, DR
Section 14ASection 153ASection 154Section 2(22)(e)Section 68

section 14A of the IT Act, 1961 read with clause (iii) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 8D of Income-tax Rules, 1962.” 3. At the outset cross objections filed by the assessee are barred by limitation. In the petition for condonation of delay

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SURYA BUILDWELL (P) LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2706/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 68

condone the delay as sufficient cause is shown. 8. The Ld. authorized representative submitted that impugned assessment year involved in assessment year 2002-03 for which the return of income was filed by the assessee on 28/10/2002 and such return was processed and assessed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act. He further submitted that search took place

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SURYA BUILDWELL PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2123/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 68

condone the delay as sufficient cause is shown. 8. The Ld. authorized representative submitted that impugned assessment year involved in assessment year 2002-03 for which the return of income was filed by the assessee on 28/10/2002 and such return was processed and assessed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act. He further submitted that search took place

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SURYA BUILDWELL PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2122/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 68

condone the delay as sufficient cause is shown. 8. The Ld. authorized representative submitted that impugned assessment year involved in assessment year 2002-03 for which the return of income was filed by the assessee on 28/10/2002 and such return was processed and assessed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act. He further submitted that search took place

PTC INDIA LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-19(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 961/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Ptc India Ltd. Vs Dcit 2Nd Floor, Nbcc Tower, Circle-19(1), Delhi Bhikaji Cama Place, 15, R.K.Puram (Main), New Delhi-110066. Pan-Aabcp7947F Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2018-19] Dcit Vs Ptc India Ltd. Circle-19(1), 2Nd Floor, Nbcc Tower, Delhi Bhikaji Cama Place, 15, R.K.Puram (Main), New Delhi-110066. Pan-Aabcp7947F Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Salil Kapoor, Adv. & Ms. Soumya Singh, Adv Respondent By Shri D S Sidhu, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 25.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19.11.2025

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

2. The appeal of the Revenue is delayed by 461 days. Alongwith appeal memo, a petition is filed for condonation of delay wherein it is stated that due to high pendency of time barring matters, the appeal could not be filed in time. As the delay is Bonafide, it is submitted by the AO that the approval was taken from

M/S. GARDEN VIEW FOODS PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. PR. CIT- 3, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3225/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Ptc India Ltd. Vs Dcit 2Nd Floor, Nbcc Tower, Circle-19(1), Delhi Bhikaji Cama Place, 15, R.K.Puram (Main), New Delhi-110066. Pan-Aabcp7947F Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2018-19] Dcit Vs Ptc India Ltd. Circle-19(1), 2Nd Floor, Nbcc Tower, Delhi Bhikaji Cama Place, 15, R.K.Puram (Main), New Delhi-110066. Pan-Aabcp7947F Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Salil Kapoor, Adv. & Ms. Soumya Singh, Adv Respondent By Shri D S Sidhu, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 25.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19.11.2025

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

2. The appeal of the Revenue is delayed by 461 days. Alongwith appeal memo, a petition is filed for condonation of delay wherein it is stated that due to high pendency of time barring matters, the appeal could not be filed in time. As the delay is Bonafide, it is submitted by the AO that the approval was taken from

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRA!) -3 vs. M/S GAHOI BUILDWE!L (P) LTD.

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/930/2019HC Delhi12 Apr 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA

2. For the reasons mentioned in the applications, the delay of 47 days in filing the appeals is condoned. 3. Accordingly, all the applications stand disposed of . CM APPL. 48108/2019 in ITA 936/2019 (exemption) 4. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 5. Application stands disposed of. ITA 930/2019, ITA 936/2019 & ITA 952/2019 6. The present three ITAs bearing

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ( CENTRAL)-3 vs. GAHOI BUILDWELL (P) LTD.

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/936/2019HC Delhi12 Apr 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA

2. For the reasons mentioned in the applications, the delay of 47 days in filing the appeals is condoned. 3. Accordingly, all the applications stand disposed of . CM APPL. 48108/2019 in ITA 936/2019 (exemption) 4. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 5. Application stands disposed of. ITA 930/2019, ITA 936/2019 & ITA 952/2019 6. The present three ITAs bearing

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TEX vs. M/S GAHOI BUILDWELL (P) LTD

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/952/2019HC Delhi12 Apr 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA

2. For the reasons mentioned in the applications, the delay of 47 days in filing the appeals is condoned. 3. Accordingly, all the applications stand disposed of . CM APPL. 48108/2019 in ITA 936/2019 (exemption) 4. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 5. Application stands disposed of. ITA 930/2019, ITA 936/2019 & ITA 952/2019 6. The present three ITAs bearing

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1249/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarmr. Nikhil Sawhney, Vs. Dcit, 17, Sunder Nagar, Central Circle, New Delhi-11003 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaups0222Q

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur hansra, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)

delay in filing of appeals for both the years are hereby condoned and taken up for adjudication. 4. The only identical issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld CIT(A) was justified in confirming the action of the ld AO in not allowing the carry forward of Long Term Capital Loss (LTCL) arising

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU, NEW DLEHI vs. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD

ITA/172/2020HC Delhi04 Mar 2020

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

Section 14ASection 28Section 44

2 of 5 4. By this application, the Appellant seeks condonation of delay 24 days in filing the appeal. Considering the extent of delay, counsel for the Respondent fairly does not oppose the application. The same is allowed and the delay is condoned. 5. The application stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. ITA 172/2020 6. The Revenue has preferred

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-9 vs. VEDANTA LIMITED.

ITA/1467/2018HC Delhi18 Dec 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI

Section 10(34)Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 260ASection 80I

delay is condoned. ITA 1467/2018 This appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act 1961 (for short ‘Act’) in the case of Vedanta Ltd (Formerly known as Madras Aluminium Co. Ltd.) relates to the assessment year 2010-2011 and arises from the order dated 10th April, 2018 passed by the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal ('Tribunal

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI 1 vs. M/S AMADEUS INDIA PVT. LTD.

Appeal is dismissed being covered

ITA/511/2025HC Delhi10 Oct 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

Section 14Section 14ASection 260A

delay of 18 days in filing and 17 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. 2. The applications are disposed of. Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:15.10.2025 12:58:54 Signature Not Verified ITA 511/2025 Page 2 of 12 ITA 511/2025 3. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) lays a challenge

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 vs. M/S CARAF BUILDERS & CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD.

ITA/1260/2018HC Delhi13 Nov 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI

Section 10Section 14ASection 260A

condonation of 36 days delay in re- filing the appeal. Learned counsel for the respondent-assessee has appeared on advance notice and does not oppose the application. The application is accordingly allowed. ITA 1260/2018 This appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short „the Act‟) in the case of M/s. Caraf Builders