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.

166 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 253(6)(d)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai277Chennai217Indore181Delhi166Ahmedabad144Karnataka139Kolkata124Jaipur112Surat105Bangalore101Lucknow68Chandigarh54Cochin44Pune39Panaji39Cuttack37Rajkot29Allahabad27Hyderabad27Nagpur25Patna24Varanasi18Raipur14Jodhpur11Guwahati11Visakhapatnam10Ranchi9Jabalpur8Amritsar6SC4Telangana2Dehradun1Andhra Pradesh1Rajasthan1Agra1

Key Topics

Section 43B86Section 36(1)(va)84Addition to Income49Disallowance35Condonation of Delay33Section 12A29Section 201(1)27Section 143(1)26Section 36(1)

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

condonation of delay was rejected and it was held by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court; referring to Babu Ram vs. Devinder Mohan Kaura AIR 1981 Delhi 14, Kankala Gurunath Patro vs. D. Dhanu Patro AIR 1984 Ori 173, and Jagannath Prasad vs. Sant Hardasram Sevashaam AIR 1978 All 250; as under: “6. …….the Counsel must disclose the circumstances

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

Showing 1–20 of 166 · Page 1 of 9

...
17
Section 139(1)17
Section 15416
Limitation/Time-bar16
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

D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. In this bunch of appeals two appeals have been filed by the revenue for Assessment Year 2006-07 in ITA No. 1363/Del/2012 and for Assessment Year 2007-08 in ITA No. 1364/Del/2012 which are delayed by 585 and 502 days respectively. The revenue filed these appeals on 21.03.2012. ACIT, Vs. Container

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

D E R These two appeals are filed by the assessee against different orders of the Ld.CIT(A)-28, New Delhi for the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15. 2. These two appeals are filed with the delay of 1944 and 1596 days respectively. Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the affidavit of the Director of the assessee

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

D E R These two appeals are filed by the assessee against different orders of the Ld.CIT(A)-28, New Delhi for the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15. 2. These two appeals are filed with the delay of 1944 and 1596 days respectively. Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the affidavit of the Director of the assessee

M/S. GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,NEW DELHI vs. CIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 455/DEL/2016[]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Sept 2016

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaghaziabad Development Authority Vs Commissioner Of Income C/O M/S Rra Tax India, Tax, D-28, South Extension, Part-1, Ghaziabad. New Delhi. Aaalg0072C

Section 12ASection 12A(1)Section 154

D-28, South Extension, Part-1, Ghaziabad. New Delhi. AAALG0072C Assessee by Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. Sh. Somil Agarwal, Adv. Revenue by Sh. Sunil Chander Sharma, CIT DR Date of Hearing 28.07.2016 Date of Pronouncement 20.09.2016 ORDER PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 29/09/2012 passed by the Ld. Commissioner

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

d) of the Act are contrary to section 151A of the Act; and therefore the assumption of jurisdiction was not in accordance with law. 4That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred both in law and on facts in upholding an addition of Rs. 3,60,51,890/- representing alleged unexplained money and brought

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

d) of the Act are contrary to section 151A of the Act; and therefore the assumption of jurisdiction was not in accordance with law. 4That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred both in law and on facts in upholding an addition of Rs. 3,60,51,890/- representing alleged unexplained money and brought

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

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S ALANKAR SAPHIRE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

ITA 2606/DEL/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2020AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

253 ITR 798 (SC) in which the Hon’ble Apex Court made a distinction in delay and inordinate delay and it was held that “Court should adopt a pragmatic approach where delay is of few days only.” The Ld. CIT(A) has also relied upon several other decisions and considering nominal delay in filing the appeal before

M/S. ALANKAR SAPHIRE DEVELOPERS,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

ITA 2279/DEL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

253 ITR 798 (SC) in which the Hon’ble Apex Court made a distinction in delay and inordinate delay and it was held that “Court should adopt a pragmatic approach where delay is of few days only.” The Ld. CIT(A) has also relied upon several other decisions and considering nominal delay in filing the appeal before

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S ALANKAR SAPHIRE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

ITA 2607/DEL/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

253 ITR 798 (SC) in which the Hon’ble Apex Court made a distinction in delay and inordinate delay and it was held that “Court should adopt a pragmatic approach where delay is of few days only.” The Ld. CIT(A) has also relied upon several other decisions and considering nominal delay in filing the appeal before

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S VINMAN ESTATES PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

ITA 1980/DEL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

253 ITR 798 (SC) in which the Hon’ble Apex Court made a distinction in delay and inordinate delay and it was held that “Court should adopt a pragmatic approach where delay is of few days only.” The Ld. CIT(A) has also relied upon several other decisions and considering nominal delay in filing the appeal before

M/S. WORLDWIDE REALTORS (P) LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

ITA 2280/DEL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

253 ITR 798 (SC) in which the Hon’ble Apex Court made a distinction in delay and inordinate delay and it was held that “Court should adopt a pragmatic approach where delay is of few days only.” The Ld. CIT(A) has also relied upon several other decisions and considering nominal delay in filing the appeal before

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S WITNESS CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

ITA 2603/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

253 ITR 798 (SC) in which the Hon’ble Apex Court made a distinction in delay and inordinate delay and it was held that “Court should adopt a pragmatic approach where delay is of few days only.” The Ld. CIT(A) has also relied upon several other decisions and considering nominal delay in filing the appeal before

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S NAGESHWAR REALTORS PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

ITA 1972/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

253 ITR 798 (SC) in which the Hon’ble Apex Court made a distinction in delay and inordinate delay and it was held that “Court should adopt a pragmatic approach where delay is of few days only.” The Ld. CIT(A) has also relied upon several other decisions and considering nominal delay in filing the appeal before

M/S. ALANKAR SAPHIRE DEVELOPERS,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

ITA 2277/DEL/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2020AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

253 ITR 798 (SC) in which the Hon’ble Apex Court made a distinction in delay and inordinate delay and it was held that “Court should adopt a pragmatic approach where delay is of few days only.” The Ld. CIT(A) has also relied upon several other decisions and considering nominal delay in filing the appeal before

M/S. ALANKAR SAPHIRE DEVELOPERS,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

ITA 2278/DEL/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

253 ITR 798 (SC) in which the Hon’ble Apex Court made a distinction in delay and inordinate delay and it was held that “Court should adopt a pragmatic approach where delay is of few days only.” The Ld. CIT(A) has also relied upon several other decisions and considering nominal delay in filing the appeal before

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. BELIEVE DEVELOPERS & PROMOTERS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

ITA 6444/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

253 ITR 798 (SC) in which the Hon’ble Apex Court made a distinction in delay and inordinate delay and it was held that “Court should adopt a pragmatic approach where delay is of few days only.” The Ld. CIT(A) has also relied upon several other decisions and considering nominal delay in filing the appeal before

M/S VINMAN ESTATES (P) LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

ITA 1589/DEL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

253 ITR 798 (SC) in which the Hon’ble Apex Court made a distinction in delay and inordinate delay and it was held that “Court should adopt a pragmatic approach where delay is of few days only.” The Ld. CIT(A) has also relied upon several other decisions and considering nominal delay in filing the appeal before

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

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

ITA 1975/DEL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

253 ITR 798 (SC) in which the Hon’ble Apex Court made a distinction in delay and inordinate delay and it was held that “Court should adopt a pragmatic approach where delay is of few days only.” The Ld. CIT(A) has also relied upon several other decisions and considering nominal delay in filing the appeal before