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.

132 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 253(6)(c)clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai187Mumbai181Karnataka139Delhi132Ahmedabad119Kolkata113Jaipur76Bangalore67Indore61Lucknow55Surat53Pune45Chandigarh40Raipur35Panaji27Cuttack26Hyderabad25Allahabad24Cochin18Rajkot16Varanasi15Jodhpur12Patna12Guwahati10Nagpur9Ranchi9Amritsar8Jabalpur7SC4Visakhapatnam3Agra3Telangana2Andhra Pradesh1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 43B105Section 36(1)(va)99Addition to Income70Disallowance51Section 143(1)46Condonation of Delay42Section 234E34Section 139(1)30Section 200A

M/S. BOUTIQUE HOTELS INDIA (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 7042/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Neel Kanth Khandelwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjog Kapoor, Sr. DR
Section 253(3)Section 80I

c) Affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant was based on hearsay and no facts were true to the knowledge of the persons who filed the affidavit in support of the application for condonation of delay. It will be appropriate to refer to the findings recorded by the Ld. Tribunal in the impugned order, which reads as under: Page

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

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

Showing 1–20 of 132 · Page 1 of 7

29
Section 201(1)28
Section 36(1)27
Deduction27
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

condone the delay in late filing the income tax returns or that no appeal is provided from arbitrary order passed under section 234E of the Act. The Hon'ble High Court held that the right to appeal was not a matter of right but was creature of statute and if the Legislature deems fit not to provide remedy of appeal

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

condone the delay in late filing the income tax returns or that no appeal is provided from arbitrary order passed under section 234E of the Act. The Hon'ble High Court held that the right to appeal was not a matter of right but was creature of statute and if the Legislature deems fit not to provide remedy of appeal

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

condone the delay in late filing the income tax returns or that no appeal is provided from arbitrary order passed under section 234E of the Act. The Hon'ble High Court held that the right to appeal was not a matter of right but was creature of statute and if the Legislature deems fit not to provide remedy of appeal

ACIT, CC-14, DELHI vs. LAKSHYA CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 181/DEL/2021[2005-06]Status: HeardITAT Delhi22 Jan 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

For Appellant: Shri Lalit Mohan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT- DR
Section 153ASection 253Section 5

253 of the Act is 60 days from the date on which the order sought to be appealed against is communicated to the assessee, PCIT or CIT. However, in clause (v), powers have been vested by the Tribunal to admit an appeal if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting it within that time

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

condone the delay in late filing the income tax returns or that no appeal is provided from arbitrary order passed under section 234E of the Act. The Hon'ble High Court held that the right to appeal was not a matter of right but was creature of statute and if the Legislature deems fit not to provide remedy

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

condone the delay in late filing the income tax returns or that no appeal is provided from arbitrary order passed under section 234E of the Act. The Hon'ble High Court held that the right to appeal was not a matter of right but was creature of statute and if the Legislature deems fit not to provide remedy

EBNOY HOMES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 74(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1101/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020AY 2015-16

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

Section 200Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234Section 234ESection 271Section 271H

6. She also drew the attention of the Bench to the provisions of Section 271H of the Act which was simultaneously inserted with the provisions of section 234E w.e.f. 01.07.2012 by the Finance Act, 2012. She submitted that the applicability & interpretation of the provisions of sec. 271H have been discussed by various High Courts in its order while examining

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. CONTAINER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result ITA No. 1364/Del/2012 for AY 2007-08 filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1364/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Kirshnan, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT DR

C-3, CONCOR Bhawan, Opp Apollo New Delhi Hospital, Mathura Road, New Delhi PAN:AAACC1205A (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by : Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT DR Assessee by: Shri Kirshnan, Adv Shri V Raj Kumar, Adv Date of Hearing 28/11/2017 Date of pronouncement 23/02/2018 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. In this bunch of appeals two appeals

MONICA GOLD PIPES PRIVATE LIMITED,KHASRA NO. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 16(2), C R BUILDING

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3791/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.3791 & 3792/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

Section 11Section 119Section 119(2)(b)Section 260A

Section 253 of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Appellate Tribunal - Appeals to(Condonation of delay) - Assessment years 1994-95 and 1996-97- Whether where assessee filed appeal before Tribunal with a delay of 2984 days by taking a plea that he was wrongly advised by his Chartered Accountant earlier not to file appeal, in view of fact that assessee produced

MONICA GOLD PIPES PRIVATE LIMITED,KHASRA NO. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 16(2), C R BUILDING

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3792/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.3791 & 3792/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

Section 11Section 119Section 119(2)(b)Section 260A

Section 253 of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Appellate Tribunal - Appeals to(Condonation of delay) - Assessment years 1994-95 and 1996-97- Whether where assessee filed appeal before Tribunal with a delay of 2984 days by taking a plea that he was wrongly advised by his Chartered Accountant earlier not to file appeal, in view of fact that assessee produced

SH. RAJ KUMAR CHAUDHARY,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-34(5), DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 3671/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2018-19] Shri Raj Kumar Chaudhary, Income Tax Officer, C-243, Sector-3, Dsidc Ward-34(5), Indl. Area Bawana, Vs Delhi. New Delhi-11003. Pan- Aewpk1980K Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2018-19] Shri Raj Kumar Chaudhary, Income Tax Officer, C-243, Sector-3, Dsidc Ward-34(5), Indl. Area Bawana, Vs Delhi. New Delhi-11003. Pan- Aewpk1980K Assessee Revenue

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 249(3)Section 271A

253 of the Act, the appeal has to be filed within sixty days of order dated 10.1.2025 passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, and as such the appeal was due to be filed by 11.3.2025 whereas the appeal has been filed on 03.06.2025 leading to a delay of 64 days

SH. RAJ KUMAR CHAUDHARY,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-34(5), DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 3670/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2018-19] Shri Raj Kumar Chaudhary, Income Tax Officer, C-243, Sector-3, Dsidc Ward-34(5), Indl. Area Bawana, Vs Delhi. New Delhi-11003. Pan- Aewpk1980K Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2018-19] Shri Raj Kumar Chaudhary, Income Tax Officer, C-243, Sector-3, Dsidc Ward-34(5), Indl. Area Bawana, Vs Delhi. New Delhi-11003. Pan- Aewpk1980K Assessee Revenue

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 249(3)Section 271A

253 of the Act, the appeal has to be filed within sixty days of order dated 10.1.2025 passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, and as such the appeal was due to be filed by 11.3.2025 whereas the appeal has been filed on 03.06.2025 leading to a delay of 64 days

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S VISHU IMPEX PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the

ITA 3703/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar Gupta, Adv
Section 275(1)(c)

c) of the Act. 3. The ld. AR submitted that the cross objections of the assessee being on legal grounds, may kindly be taken up first and the application for condonation of delay and admission of additional ground sought to be taken by the assessee by way of cross objection may kindly be heard first. The ld. DR fairly submitted

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S VISHU IMPEX PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the

ITA 2765/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar Gupta, Adv
Section 275(1)(c)

c) of the Act. 3. The ld. AR submitted that the cross objections of the assessee being on legal grounds, may kindly be taken up first and the application for condonation of delay and admission of additional ground sought to be taken by the assessee by way of cross objection may kindly be heard first. The ld. DR fairly submitted

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. D.K. JAIN, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1485/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. L. P. Sahuacit D. K. Jain Circle – 32(1) D-19, Nazamuddin East, New Delhi Vs. New Delhi

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam JainFor Respondent: Sh. Anil Kr. Sharma, Sr. DR

6 machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes could not be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, the Department had failed to give acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such

SRD MANAGEMENT COMPANY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-22(2), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 1237/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr. B.R.R.Kumar[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Srd Management Company, Vs Dcit, 304, 3Rd Floor, 44 Deenar Circle-22(2), Bhawan, Nehru Place, New Delhi. New Delhi-110019. Pan-Aamcs3799K Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Bawa Kanwarjit Singh, Ca Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 01.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 07.08.2023

253 ITR 798) the Apex Court clearly laid down that the distinction must be made between a case where delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. The law assists those who are vigilant, not those who sleep over their rights. 6. The delay cannot be condoned simply because the assessee's case

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND (ICID PF TRUST),NEW DELHI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed as above

ITA 4204/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 10Section 10(21)Section 10(25)(ii)Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 154

condoning the delay in filing the present appeals. 5.1 The Ld. AR contended that Columns 13 to 16 of Part B – TI Statement of Income for The Period Ended On 31st March 2014 of the ITR 7 provides claim of exemption under section 10 of the Act. Column 13 of Part B – TI Statement of Income for The Period Ended

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND (ICID PF TRUST),NEW DELHI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed as above

ITA 4203/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 10Section 10(21)Section 10(25)(ii)Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 154

condoning the delay in filing the present appeals. 5.1 The Ld. AR contended that Columns 13 to 16 of Part B – TI Statement of Income for The Period Ended On 31st March 2014 of the ITR 7 provides claim of exemption under section 10 of the Act. Column 13 of Part B – TI Statement of Income for The Period Ended

DELHI AGROHA VIKAS TRUST,DELHI vs. CIT(E) DELHI, DELHI

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

ITA 9348/DEL/2019[-]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2020

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri O. P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. V. K. Bindal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT(DR)
Section 12ASection 253(5)Section 80G

253(5) of the Act, which reads as, "The Appellate Tribunal may admit an appeal or permit the filing of a memorandum of cross- objections after the expiry of the relevant period referred to in sub- section (3) or sub-section (4), if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period, your Honour