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.

69 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 198clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai110Karnataka105Delhi69Bangalore66Kolkata63Chennai59Chandigarh58Pune39Jaipur38Calcutta36Lucknow22Surat22Hyderabad19Cuttack12Indore7Visakhapatnam6Cochin6Ahmedabad6Ranchi5Guwahati5Patna5Nagpur3SC3Andhra Pradesh2Rajasthan1Rajkot1Raipur1Amritsar1Allahabad1Telangana1Panaji1

Key Topics

Addition to Income48Section 143(1)40Section 14740Section 80I29Section 234E28Section 200A26Section 143(3)22Section 153C22Section 148

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CR BUILDING vs. PC JEWELLER LIMITED, DELHI

In the result appeals preferred by the revenue are dismissed and the\ncross objections preferred by the assessee are allowed\nOrder pronounced in open court on 06

ITA 2581/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2025AY 2015-16
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 35D

delay condone by the ld. CIT(A) is\nfound to be just and proper so as not to warrant interference. Thus this\nground of appeal preferred by the revenue is found to be devoid of any merit\nand hence dismissed.\n15. The Revenue has further raised grounds in regard to the decision\nmade by the Ld. First Appellate Authority

DCIT, CIRCLE - 19(1), DELHI vs. PC JEWELLER LIMITED, DELHI

In the result appeals preferred by the revenue are dismissed and the\ncross objections preferred by the assessee are allowed\nOrder pronounced in open court on 06

ITA 3084/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: Disposed

Showing 1–20 of 69 · Page 1 of 4

21
Deduction21
Condonation of Delay15
Disallowance15
ITAT Delhi
06 Jun 2025
AY 2016-17
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 35D

delay condone by the ld. CIT(A) is\nfound to be just and proper so as not to warrant interference. Thus this\nground of appeal preferred by the revenue is found to be devoid of any merit\nand hence dismissed.\n15. The Revenue has further raised grounds in regard to the decision\nmade by the Ld. First Appellate Authority

IMPERIAL AUTO INUDSTRIES LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, DELHI

ITA 3927/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Ms. Madhumita Royi.T.A. No. 3927/Del/2023 (Assessment Year : 2020-21) M/S. Imperial Auto Vs. Asst. Director Of Income Tax Industries Ltd., Centralized Processing Plot No.202, Kushal Cell, Bengaluru Bazar, 32-33, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019 Pan: Aaaci 0645 J (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. And Mr. Deepesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT-D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

Section 143(3) of the Act and thus the said appeal was found not maintainable by the Learned CIT(A). Hence, the instant appeal before us. 4. Learned CIT(A), as it appears from the order impugned observed the following while rejecting the appeal preferred by the assessee : “3.4. I have carefully considered the explanation of the appellant in support

HUGHES COMTEL PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-11(1), DELHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3651/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 40ASection 43B

198) 17itd 1021 (Hon'ble Calcutta ITAT) has passed the order in favor of revenue. 7.9 In view of the above discussions and decisions, the request for condonation of delay is rejected as the same is not maintainable in view of the provisions of Section

YAMUNA KHADAR SHIKSHA SAMITI,DELHI vs. ITO, TDS, MUZAFFARNAGAR

In the result, all the Eleven appeals filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 6257/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Before Shri A.N. Misshra

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Acharya, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 200ASection 234E

condoning the delay in filing the appeals was also filed as referred to by the learned Authorized Representative. Referring to the order passed by the CIT(A), the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that the order of Assessing Officer was not passed under section 234E of the Act but was passed under section 200A

YAMUNA KHADAR SHIKSHA SAMITI,DELHI vs. ITO, TDS, MUZAFFARNAGAR

In the result, all the Eleven appeals filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 6258/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Before Shri A.N. Misshra

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Acharya, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 200ASection 234E

condoning the delay in filing the appeals was also filed as referred to by the learned Authorized Representative. Referring to the order passed by the CIT(A), the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that the order of Assessing Officer was not passed under section 234E of the Act but was passed under section 200A

YAMUNA KHADAR SHIKSHA SAMITI,DELHI vs. ITO, TDS, MUZAFFARNAGAR

In the result, all the Eleven appeals filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 6259/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Before Shri A.N. Misshra

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Acharya, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 200ASection 234E

condoning the delay in filing the appeals was also filed as referred to by the learned Authorized Representative. Referring to the order passed by the CIT(A), the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that the order of Assessing Officer was not passed under section 234E of the Act but was passed under section 200A

SHRI CHETAN SETH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2984/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara\Nand\Nshri Brajesh Kumar Singh\Nita Nos.1808/Del/2023 & 2983, 2984 & 2985/Del/2015\N[Assessment Years: 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08]\Nshri Chetan Seth,\Nplot No.14, Lcs, Sector-B-1,\Nvasant Kunj,\Nnew Delhi-110070\Npan-Aolps2992A\Nappellant\Nincome Tax Officer,\Nward-15(3),\Nvs New Delhi\Nrespondent\Nappellant By\Nrespondent By\Nshri Arun Kishore, Ca &\Nshri Alok Suri, Ca\Nshri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr.\N(Dr)\Ndate Of Hearing\Ndate Of Pronouncement\N28.03.2025\N25.06.2025\Norder\Nper Brajesh Kumar Singh, Am,\Nthese Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The\Norder Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Delhi, Dated\N24.02.2015 For Ay 2004-05, 27.02.2015 For Ay 2005-06, 2006-07 And\N2007-08 Respectively Arising Out Of Assessment Orders Passed U/S 147/144\Nof The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To ‘The Act') Dated\N31.10.2011 For All The Above Assessment Years, Respectively. Since, The\Nissues Are Common & Connected, Hence, These Appeals Were Heard\Ntogether & Are Disposed Of By This Common Order.\N2. First, We Shall Take Up The Ita No.1808/Del/2023 Pertaining To Ay\N2004-05.\N2.

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

condone the delay of 2947 days and admit this appeal for\nhearing.\n3. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No.1808/Del/2023\nfor AY 2004-05 are as under:-\n\"1. 1. That the CIT (A) erred on facts and in law in not\nholding that the assessment order passed by the assessing\nofficer under section 147/144

M/S. SAMIKARAN LEARNING PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4050/DEL/2016[2015-16 (F.Y. 2014-15)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Nov 2017

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Joginder Singh

Section 200Section 200ASection 201Section 234E

condoning the delay in filing the appeals was also filed as referred to by the learned Authorized Representative. Referring to the order passed by the CIT(A), the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that the order of Assessing Officer was not passed under section 234E of the Act but was passed under section 200A

M/S. SAMIKARAN LEARNING PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4051/DEL/2016[2014-15 (F.Y. 2013-14)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Nov 2017

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Joginder Singh

Section 200Section 200ASection 201Section 234E

condoning the delay in filing the appeals was also filed as referred to by the learned Authorized Representative. Referring to the order passed by the CIT(A), the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that the order of Assessing Officer was not passed under section 234E of the Act but was passed under section 200A

DEVENDER KUMAR,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO WARD - 1(2), GHAZIABAD

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

ITA 124/DEL/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

For Appellant: Shri Akshit, Goel, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

198-A, New Defence [vs. Ward-(2), Colony, Muradnagar, Ghaziabad – 201 001 U.P. Ghaziabad. PAN DQTPK8854G (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Akshit, Goel, C.A. For Revenue : Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 29.09.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 14.10.2022 ORDER This appeal by assessee has been directed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), Ghaziabad, dated

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SNG DEVELOPERS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee as well as the appeal filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 735/DEL/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2016AY 2003-04
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148

198 ITR 669 (All.) C.O. No. 110/Del/2012 AY: 2003-04 ii. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred in law and on facts by not giving any finding on the case laws cited on page 2 of the written submission dated 27.05.2011 on the subject relevant to two notices issued

USHA SHARMA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal and stay application of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 6564/DEL/2016[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2017AY 2015-16

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 194Section 195Section 195(1)Section 201Section 201(1)

delay occurred in filing the present appeal is, therefore, condoned. 3. The brief facts relevant to the issue are that the appellant purchased a property at 1st Floor, E-180, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi from Sh. Ramesh Kumar Vahi S/o Mr. LY Vahi and Smt Pomila Vahi w/o Sh. Ramesh Kumar Vahi, both non-residents

ACIT, CIRCLE-26(2), NEW DELHI vs. VIKRAM ELECTRIC EQUIPMENT P.LTD, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as\ninfructuous

ITA 4651/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2025AY 2009-10
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

delay is condoned.\n\n4. The Revenue in its appeal challenged the order of the\nLd.CIT(Appeals) in deleting the addition made u/s 68 of the Act and\nthe assessee in its cross objection challenged the validity of\n2\n\nI.T.A. No. 4651/Del/2018 & CO No.74/Del/2023\nreopening of assessment on the ground that notice u/s 148 of the\nAct

M/S. AUTO IGNITION LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed and matter is

ITA 2537/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Anil Malhotra, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jain, Senior DR
Section 143(3)Section 198Section 301

condonation of delay of 481 days, qua the assessment year 2008-09 on the grounds inter alia that :- “The Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the arbitrary additions made by the Ld. OCIT on the plea that a solo notice dated 09.10.2012 fixing the hearing on 26.10.2012 was returned by postal authorities

DHARAMVIR KHOSLA ,. vs. DCIT CC-5, NEW DELHI , .

The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes and ld

ITA 3976/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2019-20
For Appellant: \nSh. Rajiv Saxena, AdvFor Respondent: \nSh. Mahesh Kumar, CIT, DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 153CSection 32(1)(ii)

condonation of delay since assessee's application for rectification of the\nintimation under section 143(1) of the Act has been filed within time and same is\npending disposal. With the above said observation, the grounds of the assessee are\nrejected.\nPage | 11\nITA Nos. 3976 & 3977/Del/2025\nDharamvirKhosla (AY: 2019-20 & 2020-21)\n9.\nHowever, what is material is that

DHARAMVIR KHOSLA,. vs. DCIT CC-5, NEW DELHI , .

The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes and ld

ITA 3977/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2020-21
For Appellant: \nSh. Rajiv Saxena, AdvFor Respondent: \nSh. Mahesh Kumar, CIT, DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 153CSection 32(1)(ii)

condonation of delay since assessee's application for rectification of the\nintimation under section 143(1) of the Act has been filed within time and same is\npending disposal. With the above said observation, the grounds of the assessee are\nrejected.\"\nPage | 12\nITA Nos. 3976 & 3977/Del/2025\nDharamvirKhosla (AY: 2019-20 & 2020-21)\n9. However, what is material is that

INDRAWATI ,PANIPAT vs. ITO WARD-2, PANIPAT

In the result, both the captioned appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1426/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr.DR
Section 10(37)Section 143(1)Section 154

198 which is clearly illegal and in excess of its jurisdiction and therefore the intimation issued under section 143(1) of the Act by CPC deserves to be quashed/set aside. 7. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that I.T.As No.1425 & 1426/Del/2022 3 no requisite enquiry was conducted by the Assessing Officer while disallowing

INDRAWATI,HARYANA vs. ITO,WARD-2, PANIPAT

In the result, both the captioned appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1425/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr.DR
Section 10(37)Section 143(1)Section 154

198 which is clearly illegal and in excess of its jurisdiction and therefore the intimation issued under section 143(1) of the Act by CPC deserves to be quashed/set aside. 7. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that I.T.As No.1425 & 1426/Del/2022 3 no requisite enquiry was conducted by the Assessing Officer while disallowing

DALMIA CEMENT (BHARAT) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 26, NEW DELHI

ITA 5416/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2013-14] The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. Income Tax, Circle-1, Dalmiapuram, Williams Road, Vs Tamilnadu, 621651 Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan-Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue Cross Objection No.63/Chny/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.3157/Chny2017) [Assessment Year: 2013-14] M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. The Assistant Commissioner Of Dalmiapuram, Income Tax, Circle-1, Tamilnadu-621651 Vs Williams Road, Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan- Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2014-15] The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. Income Tax, Circle-1, Dalmiapuram, Williams Road, Vs Tamilnadu, 621651 Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan-Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue

Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)

condone the delay in the appeals of the Revenue and proceed to adjudicate the same. 3. Both the contesting parties have informed that the appeals and the Cross objections in relevant years being AY 2013-14 and 2014-15, hover around common issues and hence for the purposes of convenience were heard and are being adjudicated by this common order