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.

165 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 254clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai327Surat178Delhi165Chennai136Karnataka103Kolkata100Jaipur79Ahmedabad69Bangalore45Calcutta44Hyderabad37Rajkot34Raipur32Pune30Indore30Lucknow25Visakhapatnam22Chandigarh22Cochin13Guwahati12Nagpur11Cuttack10Varanasi7Allahabad5SC4Agra3Patna3Amritsar3Andhra Pradesh2Dehradun2Panaji2Punjab & Haryana1Telangana1Himachal Pradesh1Orissa1Rajasthan1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Addition to Income54Condonation of Delay33Section 143(3)28Limitation/Time-bar27Section 244A25Section 143(1)19Disallowance19Section 118Section 148

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7 vs. SUMITOMO CORPORATION INDIA (P) LTD.

ITA/52/2023HC Delhi02 Sept 2024

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

254, section 260, section 262, section 263, or section 264 or in an order of any court in a proceeding otherwise than by way of appeal or reference under this Act, on or before the expiry of twelve months from the end of the month in which such order is received or passed by the [Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MICROSOFT INDIA ( R & D) PVT. LTD.

ITA/993/2019HC Delhi02 Mar 2020

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

254, section 260, section 262, section 263, or section 264 or in an order of any court in a proceeding otherwise than by way of appeal or reference under this Act, on or before the expiry of twelve months from the end of the month in which such order is received or passed by the [Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief

Showing 1–20 of 165 · Page 1 of 9

...
18
Section 260A17
Deduction17
Section 10B14

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.

ITA/995/2019HC Delhi02 Mar 2020

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

254, section 260, section 262, section 263, or section 264 or in an order of any court in a proceeding otherwise than by way of appeal or reference under this Act, on or before the expiry of twelve months from the end of the month in which such order is received or passed by the [Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief

HL MALHOTRA AND COMPANY PVT. LTD.

The appeal is disposed of

ITA/211/2020HC Delhi22 Dec 2020
Section 254(2)Section 260A

254(2) of the Act is pending consideration, this Court should not condone the delay in the present case. He states that condonation of ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 2020:DHC:3695-DB ITA NO.211/2020 Page 4 of 10 delay in filing the appeal would amount to allowing the appellant to midway abandon its application under Section

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

delay condone by the ld. CIT(A) is\nfound to be just and proper so as not to warrant interference. Thus this\nground of appeal preferred by the revenue is found to be devoid of any merit\nand hence dismissed.\n15. The Revenue has further raised grounds in regard to the decision\nmade by the Ld. First Appellate Authority

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

ITA 3084/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2025AY 2016-17
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 35D

delay condone by the ld. CIT(A) is\nfound to be just and proper so as not to warrant interference. Thus this\nground of appeal preferred by the revenue is found to be devoid of any merit\nand hence dismissed.\n15. The Revenue has further raised grounds in regard to the decision\nmade by the Ld. First Appellate Authority

UNITED BANK OF INDIA (FORMELY) NOW PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK ,DELHI vs. ACIT LTU-1 KOLKATA (UNDER TRANSFER TO CIRCLE 19(1), DELHI

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

ITA 387/DEL/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad[Assessment Year: 2009-10]

Section 154Section 234DSection 244ASection 250

condonation of delay under section 249(3) in presenting the appeal for assessment year 2008-09. That the effect order under section 254

IMPERIAL AUTO INUDSTRIES LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, DELHI

ITA 3927/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Ms. Madhumita Royi.T.A. No. 3927/Del/2023 (Assessment Year : 2020-21) M/S. Imperial Auto Vs. Asst. Director Of Income Tax Industries Ltd., Centralized Processing Plot No.202, Kushal Cell, Bengaluru Bazar, 32-33, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019 Pan: Aaaci 0645 J (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. And Mr. Deepesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT-D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, declining to condone a delay of 254 days, because the reasons assigned for the condonation

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

In the result, three appeals by Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2599/DEL/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Oct 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Lalit Mohan, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Parmita M. Biswas, CIT(DR)
Section 264Section 271

condoning the delay in filing of appeal in relying upon the judicial precedents without appreciating that the referred judicial precedents call for the bonafide conduct and no negligence of the assessee which is completely absent in this case. 7. That the CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law in admitting the additional evidence filed by the assessee during

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

In the result, three appeals by Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2602/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Oct 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Lalit Mohan, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Parmita M. Biswas, CIT(DR)
Section 264Section 271

condoning the delay in filing of appeal in relying upon the judicial precedents without appreciating that the referred judicial precedents call for the bonafide conduct and no negligence of the assessee which is completely absent in this case. 7. That the CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law in admitting the additional evidence filed by the assessee during

M/S. DOON VALLEY SPECIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, DEHRADUN

In the result all the above four appeals filed by the assessee are disposed off by this common order

ITA 2200/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishidoon Valley Special Area Vs. Cit (Exemption), Development Authority, Tc 46V, Up State 12, Pritam Road, Construction & Dehradun Infrastructure Development Pan: Aaald0125F Corporation, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh B. Bhhiber, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Verma, CIT DR
Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 2(15)

condoning the delay was not available before him. The assessee has also stated that it received the query letter dated 18.11.2016 only on 26.11.2016 and immediately on 29.11.2016 it prepared a reply and sent by Speed Post on 30.11.2016. Looking to the whole time chart, it is apparent that assessee could not furnish complete details before

M/S. DOON VALLEY SPECIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, DEHRADUN

In the result all the above four appeals filed by the assessee are disposed off by this common order

ITA 2199/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishidoon Valley Special Area Vs. Cit (Exemption), Development Authority, Tc 46V, Up State 12, Pritam Road, Construction & Dehradun Infrastructure Development Pan: Aaald0125F Corporation, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh B. Bhhiber, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Verma, CIT DR
Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 2(15)

condoning the delay was not available before him. The assessee has also stated that it received the query letter dated 18.11.2016 only on 26.11.2016 and immediately on 29.11.2016 it prepared a reply and sent by Speed Post on 30.11.2016. Looking to the whole time chart, it is apparent that assessee could not furnish complete details before

M/S. DOON VALLEY SPECIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,DEHRADUN vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), LUCKNOW

In the result all the above four appeals filed by the assessee are disposed off by this common order

ITA 533/DEL/2017[]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2018

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishidoon Valley Special Area Vs. Cit (Exemption), Development Authority, Tc 46V, Up State 12, Pritam Road, Construction & Dehradun Infrastructure Development Pan: Aaald0125F Corporation, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh B. Bhhiber, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Verma, CIT DR
Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 2(15)

condoning the delay was not available before him. The assessee has also stated that it received the query letter dated 18.11.2016 only on 26.11.2016 and immediately on 29.11.2016 it prepared a reply and sent by Speed Post on 30.11.2016. Looking to the whole time chart, it is apparent that assessee could not furnish complete details before

M/S DOON VALLEY SPECIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, DEHRADUN

In the result all the above four appeals filed by the assessee are disposed off by this common order

ITA 67/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishidoon Valley Special Area Vs. Cit (Exemption), Development Authority, Tc 46V, Up State 12, Pritam Road, Construction & Dehradun Infrastructure Development Pan: Aaald0125F Corporation, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh B. Bhhiber, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Verma, CIT DR
Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 2(15)

condoning the delay was not available before him. The assessee has also stated that it received the query letter dated 18.11.2016 only on 26.11.2016 and immediately on 29.11.2016 it prepared a reply and sent by Speed Post on 30.11.2016. Looking to the whole time chart, it is apparent that assessee could not furnish complete details before

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

condonation of delay for filing revised ITRs with rider that the assessee’s refund claim cannot be entertained after 6 years. In such a situation where the Revenue is not considering overall facts of the case and decide the matter on merit, the only recourse available to the assessee is to file appeal before the Tribunal. 11. We further

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

condonation of delay for filing revised ITRs with rider that the assessee’s refund claim cannot be entertained after 6 years. In such a situation where the Revenue is not considering overall facts of the case and decide the matter on merit, the only recourse available to the assessee is to file appeal before the Tribunal. 11. We further

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2641/DEL/2013[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020AY 1999-00

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 2553/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 1999-00 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, (Appeals)-Ix, Income Tax Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 Office, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q Ita No. 2641/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 1999-00 Dcit, Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Circle-6(1), Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q Ita No. 468/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 1994-95 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Jcit(Osd), Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-6(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Pramita M. Biswas, CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 244ASection 244A(1)Section 244A(1)(a)Section 244A(3)Section 254

254, Sec. 255, Sec. 260, Sec.262, Sec. 263, Sec. 264, Sec. 245D(4) effectively directed to re- compute the refund determined u/s 143(1) or Sec. 143(3) and to pre-determine the quantum of the refund of the amount due afresh. Thus after receipt of the order under these sections, the tax payable/refund payable would be re-computed

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 599/DEL/2014[1994-95]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020AY 1994-95

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 2553/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 1999-00 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, (Appeals)-Ix, Income Tax Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 Office, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q Ita No. 2641/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 1999-00 Dcit, Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Circle-6(1), Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q Ita No. 468/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 1994-95 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Jcit(Osd), Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-6(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Pramita M. Biswas, CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 244ASection 244A(1)Section 244A(1)(a)Section 244A(3)Section 254

254, Sec. 255, Sec. 260, Sec.262, Sec. 263, Sec. 264, Sec. 245D(4) effectively directed to re- compute the refund determined u/s 143(1) or Sec. 143(3) and to pre-determine the quantum of the refund of the amount due afresh. Thus after receipt of the order under these sections, the tax payable/refund payable would be re-computed

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2553/DEL/2013[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020AY 1999-00

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 2553/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 1999-00 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, (Appeals)-Ix, Income Tax Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 Office, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q Ita No. 2641/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 1999-00 Dcit, Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Circle-6(1), Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q Ita No. 468/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 1994-95 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Jcit(Osd), Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-6(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Pramita M. Biswas, CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 244ASection 244A(1)Section 244A(1)(a)Section 244A(3)Section 254

254, Sec. 255, Sec. 260, Sec.262, Sec. 263, Sec. 264, Sec. 245D(4) effectively directed to re- compute the refund determined u/s 143(1) or Sec. 143(3) and to pre-determine the quantum of the refund of the amount due afresh. Thus after receipt of the order under these sections, the tax payable/refund payable would be re-computed

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT (OSD), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 468/DEL/2014[1994-95]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020AY 1994-95

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 2553/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 1999-00 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, (Appeals)-Ix, Income Tax Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 Office, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q Ita No. 2641/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 1999-00 Dcit, Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Circle-6(1), Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q Ita No. 468/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 1994-95 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Jcit(Osd), Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-6(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Pramita M. Biswas, CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 244ASection 244A(1)Section 244A(1)(a)Section 244A(3)Section 254

254, Sec. 255, Sec. 260, Sec.262, Sec. 263, Sec. 264, Sec. 245D(4) effectively directed to re- compute the refund determined u/s 143(1) or Sec. 143(3) and to pre-determine the quantum of the refund of the amount due afresh. Thus after receipt of the order under these sections, the tax payable/refund payable would be re-computed