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.

89 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 251clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai145Mumbai122Karnataka102Delhi89Ahmedabad78Pune73Kolkata71Raipur61Bangalore58Hyderabad49Jaipur46Lucknow23Nagpur22Surat20Indore20Patna17Panaji16Chandigarh16Rajkot9Jodhpur5Amritsar5Cochin4Visakhapatnam3Calcutta3Cuttack3Guwahati3Jabalpur3Rajasthan1SC1Andhra Pradesh1Agra1

Key Topics

Addition to Income75Section 6865Section 143(3)63Section 26349Section 56(2)(viib)31Section 14729Condonation of Delay27Section 251(1)26Disallowance

DEEPAK CHHABRA,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-49(1), DELHI

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

ITA 979/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.979/Del./2025, A.Y. 2017-18 Deepak Chhabra Income Tax Officer, E-53A, Mansarover Garden, Ward-49(1), New Delhi Vs. New Delhi Pan: Afdpc9133N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By None Respondent By Shri Dheeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22/08/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am The Appeal For The Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2017-18 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.01.2023 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, New Delhi [‘Cit(A)’].

Section 115BSection 254Section 271ASection 69A

condone the delay in filing this appeal as we are satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting this appeal within the prescribed time. 7. Before us, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, we heard the Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative (‘Sr. DR’). With the help of facts mentioned in orders of the Authorities below

Showing 1–20 of 89 · Page 1 of 5

26
Section 153C23
Section 14820
Deduction20

GULSHAN KUMAR,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD-1(3), GURGAON

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

ITA 2242/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 194HSection 250Section 40Section 44ASection 69A

condone the delay in filing this appeal as we are satisfied that there is sufficient cause for not presenting this appeal within the prescribed time. 6 Gulshan Basti 8. The Ld. AR of the assessee prayed for remanding the matter to the AO as none the Authorities below had decided the case on merit. 9. The Ld. Sr. DR defended

RAMESH GUPTA,CHENNAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 30(4), DELHI

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

ITA 930/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 127Section 127(2)Section 142Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

condone the delay in filing of this appeal and are deciding the case on merit. 6. The Ld. Authorized Representative (hereinafter, the ‘AR’), placing emphasis on the fact that the AO has not have valid jurisdiction over the appellant/assessee as the appellant/assessee had never filed any ITR with Delhi address. Even the PAN was not allotted with Delhi address. Hence

AKASH EDUCATION SOCIETY ,GREATER NOIDA vs. CIT-A-I, U.P

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as per ground number three raised before us

ITA 38/DEL/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Akash Education Society, Vs Cit(A)-I, R.V. Northland Institute, Noida, Uttar Pradesh. V & Po:- Chittehra, Dadri, Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh-201301. Pan-Aabta3590J Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Hifzul Hasnain, Ar Respondent By Shri Mithalesh Kumar Pandey, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 19.09.2022

Section 11Section 2(15)

delay in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned. 7. Ld. Sr. DR, in all fairness, agreed to the submissions of the Ld.AR of the assessee that similar issue in the assessee’s own appeals in ITA Nos. 6391 & 6392/Del/2017 for the Assessment Years 2006-07 & 2007-08 have been decided by the ITAT, “F” Bench, Delhi vide order

NEW MANGALORE PORT ROAD COMPANY LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1), DELHI

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

ITA 1053/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.1053/Del/2025, A.Y. 2015-16 New Mangalore Port Road Deputy Commissioner Of Company Limited, Income Tax, Circle-16(1), D-21, Corporate Park, Vs. C. R. Building, I P Estate, Sector-21, Dwarka, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aabcn9106E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Ms. Khushboo Singhal, Ca Respondent By Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 21/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am This Appeal For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2015-16 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15.09.2022 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, New Delhi [‘Cit(A)’].

Section 271(1)(c)Section 32Section 36(1)(iii)

condone the delay in the interest of justice. 4. The relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are that the assessee, engaged in business to develop, establish, construct and maintain a project relating to the construction, operation and maintenance of the New Mangalore Port Road connectivity project under the Build-Operate-Transfer (‘BOT’), filed its Income Tax Return

DEVESH CINEMAS,FARIDABAD vs. ITO WARD - 2(1), FARIDABAD

In the result, I.T.A. No. 6173/DEL/2019 is allowed

ITA 6184/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 143(3)Section 251Section 251(1)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

251(1) of the Act by invoking Section 56(2) (viib) of the Act vide order dated 29/03/2019. 4. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee has preferred the above three appeals. Since similar questions raises for consideration, the above appeals are heard together. 5. There is a delay in filing the appeal, the assessee has filed an application for condonation

DAYALU IRON & STEEL PVT. LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. ITO WARD-1(2), FARIDABAD

In the result, I.T.A. No. 6173/DEL/2019 is allowed

ITA 6173/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 143(3)Section 251Section 251(1)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

251(1) of the Act by invoking Section 56(2) (viib) of the Act vide order dated 29/03/2019. 4. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee has preferred the above three appeals. Since similar questions raises for consideration, the above appeals are heard together. 5. There is a delay in filing the appeal, the assessee has filed an application for condonation

DAYALU FASHIONS PVT. LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 1(2), FARIDABAD

In the result, I.T.A. No. 6173/DEL/2019 is allowed

ITA 6174/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 143(3)Section 251Section 251(1)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

251(1) of the Act by invoking Section 56(2) (viib) of the Act vide order dated 29/03/2019. 4. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee has preferred the above three appeals. Since similar questions raises for consideration, the above appeals are heard together. 5. There is a delay in filing the appeal, the assessee has filed an application for condonation

SANJEEV KUMAR,BULANDSHAHR vs. ITO, WARD 2(3)(2), BULANDSHAHR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 658/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: The Tribunal.

Section 69

delay of 295 days in filing appeal before the Tribunal is condoned and appeal is admitted for consideration and adjudication. 6. On merits, the Ld. Counsel submitted that the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.18,75,000/- u/s 69 of the Act on account of cash deposited towards repayment of home loan being 75% of total cash deposit

M/S. CHADHA FINLEASE LTD.,MORADABAD vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 1 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed accordingly

ITA 3731/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Sept 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishichadha Finlease Ltd, Vs. Acit, C/O. Compound Chadha Palance, Circle-3(1), Prince Road, Moradabad New Delhi Pan:Aaacc5071C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Anshu Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 251Section 271Section 68

section 251 of the income tax act, we do not find that any such powers are vested with Ld. 1st appellate authority. However, we are also of the opinion that the assessee’s appeal is delayed substantially and admittedly no reference is made in the order of the Ld. CIT appeal about filing any application for condonation

ACIT, CIRCLE-18(2), NOIDA vs. NOIDA TOLL BRIDGE CO. LTD., NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4969/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Adv
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

condonation of delay in filing of appeal may be granted since it took some time to know the current status of the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in this case. 24. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or forgo any ground/(s) of appeal either before or at the time of hearing

ACIT, CIRCLE-18(2), NOIDA vs. NOIDA TOLL BRIDGE CO. LTD., NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4968/DEL/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Adv
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

condonation of delay in filing of appeal may be granted since it took some time to know the current status of the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in this case. 24. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or forgo any ground/(s) of appeal either before or at the time of hearing

ACIT, CIRCLE-18(2), NOIDA vs. NOIDA TOLL BRIDGE CO. LTD., NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4973/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Adv
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

condonation of delay in filing of appeal may be granted since it took some time to know the current status of the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in this case. 24. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or forgo any ground/(s) of appeal either before or at the time of hearing

ACIT, CIRCLE-18(2), NOIDA vs. NOIDA TOLL BRIDGE CO. LTD., NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4971/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Adv
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

condonation of delay in filing of appeal may be granted since it took some time to know the current status of the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in this case. 24. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or forgo any ground/(s) of appeal either before or at the time of hearing

ACIT, CIRCLE-18(2), NOIDA vs. NOIDA TOLL BRIDGE CO. LTD., NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4972/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Adv
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

condonation of delay in filing of appeal may be granted since it took some time to know the current status of the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in this case. 24. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or forgo any ground/(s) of appeal either before or at the time of hearing

ACIT, CIRCLE-18(2), NOIDA vs. NOIDA TOLL BRIDGE CO. LTD., NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4970/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Adv
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

condonation of delay in filing of appeal may be granted since it took some time to know the current status of the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in this case. 24. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or forgo any ground/(s) of appeal either before or at the time of hearing

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. RITA PLASTIC (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 4159/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. S.K.Yadav & Sh.Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144

condone the delay in filing of this appeal, and proceed to decide the appeal on merits. (C) The assessee filed return of income on 31.10.2007 declaring NIL income. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (In short “Act”) dated 23.09.2008 was issued to the assessee. A notice

JAYPEE INFRA VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR vs. ACIT CIRCLE 13(1) , NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed as above

ITA 3992/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 115JSection 14ASection 249Section 250

condone the said delay. However, the Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) drew our attention to the fact that the assessee had filed a detailed reply [page 137 to 154 of the PB] to the clarificatory letter [page 135 & 136 of the PB] dated 26.07.2022 of the Ld. CIT(A). It was contended that the said appeal was not belated as inferred

KASREE DEVI,MAWANA MEERUT vs. ITO WARD-1(1)(3), AYAKAR BHAWAN, BHAINSALI GROUND, MEERUT

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1019/DEL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2017-18

Section 115BSection 250Section 250(4)Section 69A

condone the delay in filing the appeal and appeal is admitted for adjudication. 5. Apropos to the grounds of appeal learned counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions as made in the written synopsis. For the sake of clarity the submissions of the assessee are reproduced as under: “The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the order

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)

condoning the delay and dismissed the appeal of assessee in limine. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and has raised the following grounds : “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case the order passed under section 250(6) of the Act by Learned Commissioner of Income