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.

72 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 221clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai185Karnataka105Delhi72Mumbai53Kolkata35Bangalore31Pune29Jaipur27Cochin26Hyderabad24Ahmedabad17Lucknow17Surat14Chandigarh9Cuttack8Indore6Raipur6Guwahati5Visakhapatnam4Allahabad4Amritsar4Calcutta4Rajkot3Agra2SC2Dehradun1Rajasthan1Patna1Panaji1Andhra Pradesh1Telangana1Jodhpur1

Key Topics

Condonation of Delay34Section 234E31Addition to Income31Section 200A26Limitation/Time-bar25Disallowance22Section 25316Section 14A15Section 143(1)

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

221\n19 Pandemic\n06.10.2020\n12\nITA Nos.2581 & 3084/Del/2024\nC.O. Nos.67 & 96/Del/2024\n13. The ld. CIT(A) considered the explanation rendered by the assessee in\nsupport of such delay. While condoning the delay ld. CIT(A) considering the\nexplanation given by the assessee observed as follows:\n1.3 Also, it is stated that the appellant has filed the appeal before Ld.\nCIT

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

Showing 1–20 of 72 · Page 1 of 4

15
Section 15414
TDS14
Section 221(1)13
ITA 3084/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: Disposed
ITAT Delhi
06 Jun 2025
AY 2016-17
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 35D

221\n06.10.2020\n12\nITA Nos.2581 & 3084/Del/2024\nC.O. Nos.67 & 96/Del/2024\n13. The ld. CIT(A) considered the explanation rendered by the assessee in\nsupport of such delay. While condoning the delay ld. CIT(A) considering the\nexplanation given by the assessee observed as follows:\n1.3 Also, it is stated that the appellant has filed the appeal before Ld.\nCIT

M/S. DD RESORTS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue being dismissed

ITA 1246/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishi. Dd Resorts Pvt Ltd., Acit, 12, Ring Road, Cc-12, New Vs. Lajpat Nagar, Iv, Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aaacd4557E (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Dd Resorts Pvt Ltd., Cc-12, New 12, Ring Road, Vs. Delhi Lajpat Nagar, Iv, New Delhi Pan:Aaacd4557E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Sudesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma, DR
Section 140A(3)Section 292B

221 of the Act then this mistake is not covered under the umbrella of provisions of section 292B of the Act. 23. Coming to the merits of the case from the penalty order, we note that the AO has rejected the cause of shortage of funds, liquidity crunch and shortage of cash available at the time of filing return

PME POWER SOLUTIONS INDIA LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 242/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139(9)Section 140ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 249(4)(a)Section 271(1)(c)Section 276C(2)

condone the delay in removing the defects by the assessee u/s 139(9) and consider such returns as valid. 3. In pending cases as on date, where the defect specified u/s 139(9) of the Act has not been rectified by the assessee, the AD would be required to immediately initiate proceedings under section 144 of the Act by issuing

PME POWER SOLUTIONS INDIA LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 249/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139(9)Section 140ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 249(4)(a)Section 271(1)(c)Section 276C(2)

condone the delay in removing the defects by the assessee u/s 139(9) and consider such returns as valid. 3. In pending cases as on date, where the defect specified u/s 139(9) of the Act has not been rectified by the assessee, the AD would be required to immediately initiate proceedings under section 144 of the Act by issuing

ACIT CIRCLE 54(1), NEW DELHI vs. SWADESH KUMAR MISHRA, GURGAON

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee i

ITA 6043/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Sept 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144(1)Section 145(3)Section 24Section 40Section 40A(3)

section 221(1) of the Act. 28 ITA Nos.6810/Del/2019 & Ors. Swadesh Kumar Mishra vs. ACIT 36. The Ld. CIT(A) condoned the delay

RITU MISHRA,GURGAON vs. ACIT CIRCLE 54(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6830/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. T. M. Shiva Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. DR
Section 140ASection 140A(3)Section 220(2)Section 221(1)Section 234BSection 234C

section 221(1) of the Act. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) condoned the delay in filing the first appeal. However

M/S PETRONET LNG LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1197/DEL/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri G.C. Gupta & Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vikram Sahay, Sr. DR
Section 156

section 156 of the Act on assessee on 21.11.2006, despite the fact that, it had not been disputed that no Notice of demand had been served on assessee in Petronet LNG Ltd. vs. DCIT respect of the said order of assessment and time to file an appeal commences with the service of notice of demand and no valid appeal could

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

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

NAV BHARAT STONE CRUSHER,HISAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, BHIWANI

Appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1147/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 143(1)Section 221(1)Section 250Section 40Section 40B

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 wherein the Ld. CIT(A) rejected the assesse's claim. 3. Submissions in respect of Issues involved: 3.1 Submissions against rejection of condonation of delay 3.1.1 It is reiterated that the addition first came to the knowledge of the assessee only when the notice of demand u/s 221

BRAHAM DUTT SHARMA,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(5), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for

ITA 7577/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jun 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. Anoop Sharma, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 246Section 249(2)

section 246/249/250 of I.T. Act. 5. That even otherwise too, the appeal could not be filed electronically on account of lack of legal knowledge/advice involving no deliberate default on the part of appellant. That the appellant craves leave to modify/amend or add anyone or more grounds. PRAYER That keeping in view the settled law when substantial justice and technical considerations

M/S HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,,NOIDA vs. ACIT (TDS), NOIDA

In the result appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1723/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jul 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishihcl Technologies Ltd, Acit(Tds), Plot No. 3A, Tower 6, 14Th Floor, Vs. Noida Sector-126, Noida Pan: Aaach1645P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR
Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)Section 40

221 from such person, unless the Assessing Officer is satisfied that such person, without good and sufficient reasons, has failed to deduct and pay such tax. (1A) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1), if any such person, principal officer or company as is referred to in that sub- section does not deduct the whole or any part

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

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GEE ISPAT PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the department are dismissed

ITA 4259/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena A. Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain & Piyush K. KamalFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjit Singh, CIT DR
Section 253Section 5

delay in filing the appeals is condoned and the appeals are admitted. & ITA Nos. 4256 to 4259/Del/2014 Gee Ispat Pvt. Ltd. 8. At the first instance, we take up the cross appeals for the assessment year 2005-06. The grounds raised by the assessee in its appeal read as under: “1. The order passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-XXXI

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GEE ISPAT PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the department are dismissed

ITA 4258/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena A. Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain & Piyush K. KamalFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjit Singh, CIT DR
Section 253Section 5

delay in filing the appeals is condoned and the appeals are admitted. & ITA Nos. 4256 to 4259/Del/2014 Gee Ispat Pvt. Ltd. 8. At the first instance, we take up the cross appeals for the assessment year 2005-06. The grounds raised by the assessee in its appeal read as under: “1. The order passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-XXXI

M/S. GEE ISPAT PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the department are dismissed

ITA 5476/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena A. Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain & Piyush K. KamalFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjit Singh, CIT DR
Section 253Section 5

delay in filing the appeals is condoned and the appeals are admitted. & ITA Nos. 4256 to 4259/Del/2014 Gee Ispat Pvt. Ltd. 8. At the first instance, we take up the cross appeals for the assessment year 2005-06. The grounds raised by the assessee in its appeal read as under: “1. The order passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-XXXI

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GEE ISPAT PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the department are dismissed

ITA 4256/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena A. Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain & Piyush K. KamalFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjit Singh, CIT DR
Section 253Section 5

delay in filing the appeals is condoned and the appeals are admitted. & ITA Nos. 4256 to 4259/Del/2014 Gee Ispat Pvt. Ltd. 8. At the first instance, we take up the cross appeals for the assessment year 2005-06. The grounds raised by the assessee in its appeal read as under: “1. The order passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-XXXI

M/S. GEE ISPAT PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the department are dismissed

ITA 5425/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena A. Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain & Piyush K. KamalFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjit Singh, CIT DR
Section 253Section 5

delay in filing the appeals is condoned and the appeals are admitted. & ITA Nos. 4256 to 4259/Del/2014 Gee Ispat Pvt. Ltd. 8. At the first instance, we take up the cross appeals for the assessment year 2005-06. The grounds raised by the assessee in its appeal read as under: “1. The order passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-XXXI