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.

141 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 56(2)(X)clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai152Delhi141Mumbai137Karnataka100Kolkata74Chandigarh72Nagpur64Jaipur40Calcutta35Ahmedabad35Bangalore25Hyderabad22Lucknow20Pune18Indore9SC8Cochin8Guwahati7Visakhapatnam6Cuttack6Telangana6Jodhpur5Surat4Varanasi4Rajkot2Raipur2Orissa1Agra1Rajasthan1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Allahabad1Panaji1

Key Topics

Section 6882Addition to Income28Section 3721Section 244A20Disallowance15Section 69C14Section 10A14Section 143(3)11Section 147

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-1, DELHI vs. SMT. SANGEETA SAWHNEY

ITA/73/2024HC Delhi13 May 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

Section 29ASection 34

X) Vesting of the power of substitution, under Section 29A(6), is on the “Court” and this Court is the “Court” as defined in Section 2(1)(e). The text, as well as the context for identifying the Court in Section 29A(6), as well as in Section 29A(4), is the Court in Section 2(1)(e). The expression

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DEWAN SUGAR LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5784/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2008-09 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Dewan Sugar Ltd., Circle-10(1), New Delhi Surya Plaza, 1St Floor, K- 185, Sarai Jullena, New Friends Colony, New Delhi Pan :Aaacd3465H (Appellant) (Respondent)

Showing 1–20 of 141 · Page 1 of 8

...
11
Section 143(1)11
Search & Seizure10
TDS7
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)Section 36

x) of clause (24) of section (2) applies, the assessee shall be entitled to deduction in computing the income referred to in section 28 with respect to such sum credited by the assessee to the employees' account in the relevant fund or funds on or before the "due date” mentioned in explanation to section 36(l)(va). Consequently

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-XI vs. INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS/ALL INDIA CONGRESS COMMITTEE

ITA/145/2001HC Delhi23 Mar 2016

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Section 139Section 13A

x) In view of the overall excess of expenditure over income and the decision of the Supreme Court in Ranchi Club Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2001) 247 ITR 209 (SC), the interest charged under Section 234A and 234B of the Act was required to be deleted. (xi) The Revenue’s appeal was dismissed by observing that the allowance

INDIAN NATIONAL CONG. (I) AICC vs. C.I.T.- XI

ITA/180/2001HC Delhi23 Mar 2016

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Section 139Section 13A

x) In view of the overall excess of expenditure over income and the decision of the Supreme Court in Ranchi Club Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2001) 247 ITR 209 (SC), the interest charged under Section 234A and 234B of the Act was required to be deleted. (xi) The Revenue’s appeal was dismissed by observing that the allowance

INDIAN NATIONAL CONG. (I) AICC vs. C.I.T.- XI

ITA - 180 / 2001HC Delhi23 Mar 2016
Section 139Section 13A

x) In view of the overall excess of expenditure over income and the decision of the Supreme Court in Ranchi Club Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2001) 247 ITR 209 (SC), the interest charged under Section 234A and 234B of the Act was required to be deleted. (xi) The Revenue’s appeal was dismissed by observing that the allowance

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 2020AY 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

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

x) the period commencing from the date on which a reference or first of the references for exchange of information is made by an authority competent under an agreement referred to in section 90 or section 90A and ending with the date on which the information requested is last received by the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner or a period

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

x) the period commencing from the date on which a reference or first of the references for exchange of information is made by an authority competent under an agreement referred to in section 90 or section 90A and ending with the date on which the information requested is last received by the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner or a period

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

x) the period commencing from the date on which a reference or first of the references for exchange of information is made by an authority competent under an agreement referred to in section 90 or section 90A and ending with the date on which the information requested is last received by the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner or a period

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NOIDA vs. M/S ACE MEGA STRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4115/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalsl. Ita No(S) Asst. Appeal(S) By No Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 4067/Del/2025 2019-20 M/S. Ace Mega Dcit/Acit Structures Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle I-B, 7Th Floor, Ace Studio, Noida Sector-126, Noida, Sector- 37, S.O. Gautam Budh Nagar-201303 Pan-Aakca8694D M/S. Ace Mega 2. 4115/Del/2025 2019-20 Dcit, Structures Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-1, A.R.T.O Complex, Sector-33, I-B, 7Th Floor, Ace Studio, Noida-201301. Sector-126, Noida, Sector- 37, S.O. Gautam Budh Nagar-201303 Pan-Aakca8694D Appellant By Shri Rohit Kapoor, Adv. & Shri Virsain Aggarwal, Itp Respondent By Shri Mahesh Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 17.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.11.2025

Section 147Section 68

condonation of delay scheme for filing the returns. In view of the above, it was felt necessary to make enquiries both with Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd. and SFIO (the Nodal Authority maintaining the database) to know, if any, proceedings were pending with respect to Hallow Securities Pyt Ltd. with SFIO and whether M/s. Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd. had been regular

ACE MEGA STRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,UTTAR PRADESH vs. DCIT/ACIT CEN CIR, NOIDA, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4067/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalsl. Ita No(S) Asst. Appeal(S) By No Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 4067/Del/2025 2019-20 M/S. Ace Mega Dcit/Acit Structures Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle I-B, 7Th Floor, Ace Studio, Noida Sector-126, Noida, Sector- 37, S.O. Gautam Budh Nagar-201303 Pan-Aakca8694D M/S. Ace Mega 2. 4115/Del/2025 2019-20 Dcit, Structures Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-1, A.R.T.O Complex, Sector-33, I-B, 7Th Floor, Ace Studio, Noida-201301. Sector-126, Noida, Sector- 37, S.O. Gautam Budh Nagar-201303 Pan-Aakca8694D Appellant By Shri Rohit Kapoor, Adv. & Shri Virsain Aggarwal, Itp Respondent By Shri Mahesh Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 17.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.11.2025

Section 147Section 68

condonation of delay scheme for filing the returns. In view of the above, it was felt necessary to make enquiries both with Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd. and SFIO (the Nodal Authority maintaining the database) to know, if any, proceedings were pending with respect to Hallow Securities Pyt Ltd. with SFIO and whether M/s. Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd. had been regular

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

2)\nSCR 387, 1987 (1) SCALE 413], it was averred/held, as follows, by\nthe Hon'ble SupremeCourt:\n66\nIt is common knowledge that this court has been\nmaking a justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in this\ncourt. But the message does not appear to have percolated down\nto all the other courts in the hierarchy. And such a liberal

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

2)\nSCR 387, 1987 (1) SCALE 413], it was averred/held, as follows, by\nthe Hon'ble SupremeCourt:\n66\nIt is common knowledge that this court has been\nmaking a justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in this\ncourt. But the message does not appear to have percolated down\nto all the other courts in the hierarchy. And such a liberal

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SURYA BUILDWELL PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2123/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 68

condone the delay as sufficient cause is shown. 8. The Ld. authorized representative submitted that impugned assessment year involved in assessment year 2002-03 for which the return of income was filed by the assessee on 28/10/2002 and such return was processed and assessed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act. He further submitted that search took place

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SURYA BUILDWELL PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2122/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 68

condone the delay as sufficient cause is shown. 8. The Ld. authorized representative submitted that impugned assessment year involved in assessment year 2002-03 for which the return of income was filed by the assessee on 28/10/2002 and such return was processed and assessed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act. He further submitted that search took place

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SURYA BUILDWELL (P) LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2706/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 68

condone the delay as sufficient cause is shown. 8. The Ld. authorized representative submitted that impugned assessment year involved in assessment year 2002-03 for which the return of income was filed by the assessee on 28/10/2002 and such return was processed and assessed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act. He further submitted that search took place

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL-1) vs. LATE SHRI SUDHIR SAREEN

ITA/284/2015HC Delhi06 Jul 2015

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Section 375

Section 376 of IPC, the husband would be protected because of MRE. It cannot be the State's policy or in its interest to prosecute only some rapists and not those who are married to the victim in such cases. 46.1. MRE grants blanket immunity to sexual acts enumerated in clauses (a) to (d) of Section

BALGOPAL COLD STORAGES PVT. LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. ITO WARD 1(2), FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 6176/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Saxena, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 14Section 2Section 56Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

Delay condoned. 3. The assessee has raised six grounds of appeal. The ld. AR has not pressed ground nos. 1, 4, 5 & 6. Balgopal Publication & Broom Publications Pvt. Ltd. 4. Ground No. 2 relates to addition of Rs.9,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. Ground No. 3 relates to enhancement of income by Rs.70

BROOM PUBLICATIONS PVT. LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. ITO WARD 1(2), FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 6177/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Saxena, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 14Section 2Section 56Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

Delay condoned. 3. The assessee has raised six grounds of appeal. The ld. AR has not pressed ground nos. 1, 4, 5 & 6. Balgopal Publication & Broom Publications Pvt. Ltd. 4. Ground No. 2 relates to addition of Rs.9,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. Ground No. 3 relates to enhancement of income by Rs.70

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S GAHOI BUILDWELL PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

ITA 2703/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiita Nos. 2702, 2703, 2710/Del/2013 Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Kumar,CAFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, DR
Section 14ASection 153ASection 154Section 2(22)(e)Section 68

x) Y Uma Rani. Rs. 22,80,000/- lakhs. In response to the show cause notice assessee has given the details of interest free loans and advances and detailed analysis of each and every advance which was summarised as under: - SI. Name of Party Amount From where Purpose 62.00.000 Agarwal Telecommunication (P) Ltd. 1 Priyaranjan Sales (P) Ltd. On merger