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.

81 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 248clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai168Karnataka102Mumbai82Delhi81Kolkata60Jaipur37Calcutta36Bangalore36Hyderabad28Pune27Chandigarh27Lucknow16Nagpur16Panaji15Raipur11Ahmedabad11Ranchi9Indore7Guwahati6Cuttack5Patna5Cochin4Amritsar3Rajkot3Dehradun3Agra2Surat2Andhra Pradesh1Allahabad1Varanasi1Telangana1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 234E248Section 153D92Section 200A(1)60Section 200A57Section 153A40Section 271(1)(c)34Section 15434TDS32Exemption31

SANJEEV MEHTA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-70(1), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 353/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma, Judicialmember Sa No.49/Del./2024 (In Ita No.353/Del/2024) (Assessment Year : 2019-20) & Sanjeev Mehta Vs. Acit, Circle 70(1), G-1, Vishwa Apartment, New Delhi. 3, Shankaracharya Marg, Civil Lines, New Delhi – 110 054. (Pan: Aaapm5622L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, Adv. Revenue By : Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Order : 13.09.2024 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman, Am : This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (For Short ‘Ld. Cit (A)’)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 20.03.2023 For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2 Since We Have Disposed Off The Appeal In The Instant Case By This Order, The Stay Application Filed By The Assessee Has Become Infructuous, Hence Dismissed.

For Appellant: Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 253(5)Section 5

SECTION 5 OF LIMITATION ACT SEEKING CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEAL 1. That the appellant / applicant (hereinafter referred to as "assessee") has filed the captioned appeal against the order-dated 20.03.2023 (hereinafter referred to the impugned order) passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act. 2. That

Showing 1–20 of 81 · Page 1 of 5

Addition to Income25
Section 80I19
Condonation of Delay15

GUPTA SUBHASH & SONS HUF,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 34(3), DELHI, CIVIC CENTRE

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

ITA 610/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Lakshya Budhiraja, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR

condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Brief facts of the case are, assessee filed its return of income on 05.10.2017 declaring total income of Rs.3,49,095/- which was processed under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS. Notices

BRAHAM SINGH,DELHI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

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

ITA 4757/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Vimal Kumarita No. 4757/Del/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ita No.4756/Del/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Braham Singh, Vs Assessment Unit, House N0.57, Dhansa . Income Tax Department Raota, South West Delhi Delhi Pin: 1100 73 Delhi. Pan: Fhmps9910M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: S/Shri I.P. Bansal & VivekFor Respondent: Shri Amit Shukla, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 194ASection 194I

sections 144 and 144B of the Act for assessment years 2014-15 and 2016-17 respectively. Appellant/assessee filed appeals before Ld. CIT(A) with application for condonation of delay of 248

BRAHAM SINGH,DELHI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT , DELHI

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

ITA 4756/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Vimal Kumarita No. 4757/Del/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ita No.4756/Del/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Braham Singh, Vs Assessment Unit, House N0.57, Dhansa . Income Tax Department Raota, South West Delhi Delhi Pin: 1100 73 Delhi. Pan: Fhmps9910M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: S/Shri I.P. Bansal & VivekFor Respondent: Shri Amit Shukla, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 194ASection 194I

sections 144 and 144B of the Act for assessment years 2014-15 and 2016-17 respectively. Appellant/assessee filed appeals before Ld. CIT(A) with application for condonation of delay of 248

BATHLINE INDIA (PVT.) LTD.,DELHI vs. ACIT, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 9341/DEL/2019[2013-14 (26Q,Q-4)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

Section 154Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 220(2)Section 234ESection 54

condoning the delay which are ranging from 1938 days to 2008 days. Referring to the copy of the order passed u/s 154 by the CPC Cell, he submitted that the order was passed on 11th February, 2019 and against the said order, the assessee had filed the appeal on 2nd March, 2019 which was well within the due date since

BATHLINE INDIA (P) LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT - CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 9336/DEL/2019[2013-14 (24Q-Q1)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

Section 154Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 220(2)Section 234ESection 54

condoning the delay which are ranging from 1938 days to 2008 days. Referring to the copy of the order passed u/s 154 by the CPC Cell, he submitted that the order was passed on 11th February, 2019 and against the said order, the assessee had filed the appeal on 2nd March, 2019 which was well within the due date since

ANJANI TECHNOPLAST LIMITED.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT - TDS CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 7947/DEL/2019[2015-16(24Q, Q1)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Ms Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR
Section 154Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234ESection 54

condoning the delay which are ranging from 1357 days to 2065 days. Referring to the copy of the order passed u/s 154 by the CPC Cell, he submitted that the order was passed on 6th February, 2019 and against the said order, the assessee had filed the appeal on 26th February, 2019 which was well within the due date since

ANJANI TECHNOPLAST LIMITED.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT - TDS CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 7937/DEL/2019[2013-14 (27Q, Q4)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Ms Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR
Section 154Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234ESection 54

condoning the delay which are ranging from 1357 days to 2065 days. Referring to the copy of the order passed u/s 154 by the CPC Cell, he submitted that the order was passed on 6th February, 2019 and against the said order, the assessee had filed the appeal on 26th February, 2019 which was well within the due date since

ANJANI TECHNOPLAST LIMITED.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT - TDS CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 7950/DEL/2019[2015-16 (26Q, Q1)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Ms Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR
Section 154Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234ESection 54

condoning the delay which are ranging from 1357 days to 2065 days. Referring to the copy of the order passed u/s 154 by the CPC Cell, he submitted that the order was passed on 6th February, 2019 and against the said order, the assessee had filed the appeal on 26th February, 2019 which was well within the due date since

ANJANI TECHNOPLAST LIMITED.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT - TDS CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 7931/DEL/2019[2013-14 (24Q, Q2)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Ms Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR
Section 154Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234ESection 54

condoning the delay which are ranging from 1357 days to 2065 days. Referring to the copy of the order passed u/s 154 by the CPC Cell, he submitted that the order was passed on 6th February, 2019 and against the said order, the assessee had filed the appeal on 26th February, 2019 which was well within the due date since

ANJANI TECHNOPLAST LIMITED.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT - TDS CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 7945/DEL/2019[2014-15(Q4, 26Q)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Ms Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR
Section 154Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234ESection 54

condoning the delay which are ranging from 1357 days to 2065 days. Referring to the copy of the order passed u/s 154 by the CPC Cell, he submitted that the order was passed on 6th February, 2019 and against the said order, the assessee had filed the appeal on 26th February, 2019 which was well within the due date since

ANJANI TECHNOPLAST LIMITED.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT - TDS CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 7935/DEL/2019[2013-14 (26Q, Q3)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Ms Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR
Section 154Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234ESection 54

condoning the delay which are ranging from 1357 days to 2065 days. Referring to the copy of the order passed u/s 154 by the CPC Cell, he submitted that the order was passed on 6th February, 2019 and against the said order, the assessee had filed the appeal on 26th February, 2019 which was well within the due date since

ANJANI TECHNOPLAST LIMITED.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT - TDS CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 7948/DEL/2019[2015-16 (24Q, Q2)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Ms Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR
Section 154Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234ESection 54

condoning the delay which are ranging from 1357 days to 2065 days. Referring to the copy of the order passed u/s 154 by the CPC Cell, he submitted that the order was passed on 6th February, 2019 and against the said order, the assessee had filed the appeal on 26th February, 2019 which was well within the due date since

ANJANI TECHNOPLAST LIMITED.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT - TDS CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 7936/DEL/2019[2013-14 (26Q, Q4)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Ms Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR
Section 154Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234ESection 54

condoning the delay which are ranging from 1357 days to 2065 days. Referring to the copy of the order passed u/s 154 by the CPC Cell, he submitted that the order was passed on 6th February, 2019 and against the said order, the assessee had filed the appeal on 26th February, 2019 which was well within the due date since

ANJANI TECHNOPLAST LIMITED.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT - TDS CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 7946/DEL/2019[2014-15(27EQ, Q4)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Ms Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR
Section 154Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234ESection 54

condoning the delay which are ranging from 1357 days to 2065 days. Referring to the copy of the order passed u/s 154 by the CPC Cell, he submitted that the order was passed on 6th February, 2019 and against the said order, the assessee had filed the appeal on 26th February, 2019 which was well within the due date since

ANJANI TECHNOPLAST LIMITED.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT - TDS CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 7933/DEL/2019[2013-14 (24Q, Q4)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Ms Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR
Section 154Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234ESection 54

condoning the delay which are ranging from 1357 days to 2065 days. Referring to the copy of the order passed u/s 154 by the CPC Cell, he submitted that the order was passed on 6th February, 2019 and against the said order, the assessee had filed the appeal on 26th February, 2019 which was well within the due date since

ANJANI TECHNOPLAST LIMITED.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT - TDS CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 7949/DEL/2019[2015-16 (24Q, Q3)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Ms Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR
Section 154Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234ESection 54

condoning the delay which are ranging from 1357 days to 2065 days. Referring to the copy of the order passed u/s 154 by the CPC Cell, he submitted that the order was passed on 6th February, 2019 and against the said order, the assessee had filed the appeal on 26th February, 2019 which was well within the due date since

ANJANI TECHNOPLAST LIMITED.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT - TDS CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 7934/DEL/2019[2013-14 (26Q, Q2)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Ms Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR
Section 154Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234ESection 54

condoning the delay which are ranging from 1357 days to 2065 days. Referring to the copy of the order passed u/s 154 by the CPC Cell, he submitted that the order was passed on 6th February, 2019 and against the said order, the assessee had filed the appeal on 26th February, 2019 which was well within the due date since

ANJANI TECHNOPLAST LIMITED.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT - TDS CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 7932/DEL/2019[2013-14 (Q3, 24Q)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Ms Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR
Section 154Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234ESection 54

condoning the delay which are ranging from 1357 days to 2065 days. Referring to the copy of the order passed u/s 154 by the CPC Cell, he submitted that the order was passed on 6th February, 2019 and against the said order, the assessee had filed the appeal on 26th February, 2019 which was well within the due date since

ANJANI TECHNOPLAST LIMITED.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT - TDS CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 7951/DEL/2019[2015-16 (26Q, Q2)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Ms Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR
Section 154Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234ESection 54

condoning the delay which are ranging from 1357 days to 2065 days. Referring to the copy of the order passed u/s 154 by the CPC Cell, he submitted that the order was passed on 6th February, 2019 and against the said order, the assessee had filed the appeal on 26th February, 2019 which was well within the due date since