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.

56 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 276clear

Sorted by relevance

Karnataka103Mumbai56Delhi56Ahmedabad52Bangalore44Kolkata42Chennai26Rajkot23Jaipur10Chandigarh10Pune8Hyderabad6Indore6Guwahati5Amritsar4SC3Cochin2Visakhapatnam2Lucknow2Andhra Pradesh1Jodhpur1Cuttack1Himachal Pradesh1Patna1Rajasthan1Telangana1

Key Topics

Section 234E161Section 200A36Section 200A(1)36Section 15434Section 8021Exemption21TDS20Condonation of Delay18Section 5417

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

276 (Coch) where it has been held that a liberal View should be taken in a case where delay occurs due to lapse on the part of advocate chartered accountant and for promoting the cause of justice, I am of the view that the CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay in filing the appeal. I, therefore, set aside

MR. NIKHIL SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1248/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Aug 2020

Showing 1–20 of 56 · Page 1 of 3

Addition to Income14
Deduction14
Business Income13
AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishimr. Nikhil Sawhney Acit, 17 – Sunder Nagar, Central Circle, Vs. New Delhi – 110 003. Noida. Pan: Aaups0222Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143

condone the delay admitting the appeal of the assessee and proceed to decide the issue on merits. 08. Facts of case in a narrow compass shows that assessee filed his return of income on 31 August 2012 declaring total income of Rs. 167,09,146 which was subsequently revised on 25th of March 2014 declaring same

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 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 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 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 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

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

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

ITA 7952/DEL/2019[2015-16 (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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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

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