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.

257 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 86clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai425Mumbai346Kolkata272Delhi257Ahmedabad168Bangalore162Karnataka126Jaipur112Hyderabad103Pune88Chandigarh71Nagpur70Indore46Cuttack41Calcutta37Surat37Cochin31Visakhapatnam30Lucknow24Kerala17Rajkot16Jodhpur14Patna10SC10Amritsar9Guwahati9Raipur8Panaji8Allahabad4Telangana3Himachal Pradesh2Varanasi2Agra1Jabalpur1Orissa1Andhra Pradesh1Rajasthan1Ranchi1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1

Key Topics

Section 68104Addition to Income83Section 143(3)61Section 153A43Condonation of Delay34Section 143(1)29Section 143(2)29Disallowance28Section 14A

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

delay in filing Form 10B to be condoned - Held, yes [Paras 6, 7, 9 and 10] [In favour of assessee] III. Vijay Vishin Meghani vs-DCIT [2017] 86 taxmann.com 98 (Bombay HC) Section

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

Showing 1–20 of 257 · Page 1 of 13

...
26
Limitation/Time-bar25
Section 14724
Section 14823
ITA 3792/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: Disposed
ITAT Delhi
21 Aug 2024
AY 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

delay in filing Form 10B to be condoned - Held, yes [Paras 6, 7, 9 and 10] [In favour of assessee] III. Vijay Vishin Meghani vs-DCIT [2017] 86 taxmann.com 98 (Bombay HC) Section

PME POWER SOLUTIONS INDIA LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 242/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139(9)Section 140ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 249(4)(a)Section 271(1)(c)Section 276C(2)

condone the delay in removing the defects by the assessee u/s 139(9) and consider such returns as valid. 3. In pending cases as on date, where the defect specified u/s 139(9) of the Act has not been rectified by the assessee, the AD would be required to immediately initiate proceedings under section 144 of the Act by issuing

PME POWER SOLUTIONS INDIA LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 249/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139(9)Section 140ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 249(4)(a)Section 271(1)(c)Section 276C(2)

condone the delay in removing the defects by the assessee u/s 139(9) and consider such returns as valid. 3. In pending cases as on date, where the defect specified u/s 139(9) of the Act has not been rectified by the assessee, the AD would be required to immediately initiate proceedings under section 144 of the Act by issuing

VIJAY KUNDU,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 808/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena A. Pillai, Jm Ita No. 808/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Vijay Kundu, Vs Pr. Cit, C/O Raj Kumar & Associates, Delhi-21, Cas, L-7A (Lgf), South Ext., New Delhi Part-2, New Delhi-110049 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ajnpk7914P Assessee By : Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Sh. S. S. Rana, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.04.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.07.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.03.2016 Of The Ld. Cit(A)-21, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 263

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted. 9. Following grounds have been raised in this appeal: “1. That under the facts and circumstances, Ld. CIT exceeded his jurisdiction in invoking provisions of Sec. 263 of the I.T. Act as the order of Ld. AO is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue apart from that there exist

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

condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Brief facts of the case are, assessee filed its return of income on 05.10.2017 declaring total income of Rs.3,49,095/- which was processed under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS. Notices

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HUMBOLDT WEDAG INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result ITA 3207/Del/2016 stands allowed

ITA 1057/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay I. Bara, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Rajneesh Verma, CA
Section 143(1)Section 154(3)Section 92C

condone the delay. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a wholly owned subsidiary of KHD Humboldt Wedag International GmbH (Humboldt Austria). The company is primarily engaged in designing, supplying of equipment, supervision of installation, erection and commissioning activities for the cement industry on a turn-key basis (non-civil). The return of income for assessment

HUMBOLDT WEDAG INDIA PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result ITA 3207/Del/2016 stands allowed

ITA 3207/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay I. Bara, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Rajneesh Verma, CA
Section 143(1)Section 154(3)Section 92C

condone the delay. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a wholly owned subsidiary of KHD Humboldt Wedag International GmbH (Humboldt Austria). The company is primarily engaged in designing, supplying of equipment, supervision of installation, erection and commissioning activities for the cement industry on a turn-key basis (non-civil). The return of income for assessment

HUMBOLDT WEDAG INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result ITA 3207/Del/2016 stands allowed

ITA 1154/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay I. Bara, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Rajneesh Verma, CA
Section 143(1)Section 154(3)Section 92C

condone the delay. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a wholly owned subsidiary of KHD Humboldt Wedag International GmbH (Humboldt Austria). The company is primarily engaged in designing, supplying of equipment, supervision of installation, erection and commissioning activities for the cement industry on a turn-key basis (non-civil). The return of income for assessment

AMRIK SINGH THROUGH LEGAL HEIR KAWALPREET KAUR,GHAZIABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(5), GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1366/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalamrik Singh Through Legal Heir Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward Kawalpreet Kaur, 1(5), Ghaziabad, 206, Ground Floor, Niti Khand-1, Uttar Pradesh Indirapuram, Ghaziabad Pan: Achps0677E Appellant Respondent Assessee By None Revenue By Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 18/03/2026 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: This Appeal Is Filed By The Legal Heir Of The Assessee Challenging The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- Ghaziabad (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 31/08/2018 Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. None Appeared For The Appellant. Considering The Issue Involved In The Present Appeal We Deem It Fit To Decide The Appeal On Hearing The Ld. Department'S Representative & Perused The Material Available On Record.

Section 143(3)

condone the delay of 614 days in filing the present Appeal. 7. Brief facts of the case are that, an assessment order came to be passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short) on 29/12/2016 by computing the income of the Assessee at Rs. 1,12,86

SHIV PRATAP SINGH KUNWAR,UTTAR PRADESH vs. JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER, CIRCLE 1(1)(1) MEERUT, RANGE-14, UTTAR PRADESH

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

ITA 85/DEL/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2019-20] Shiv Pratap Singh Kunwar, Vs Jurisdictional Assessing 508, Begum Bagh, Meerut, Officer, Circle-1(1)(1), Uttar Pradesh-250001 Range-14, Meerut, Pan-Afmpk3273Q Uttar Pradesh-250001 Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Hemant Jain, Adv. Respondent By Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 15.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.07.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Captioned Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.11.2023 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld.Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Nfac/2018-19/10029654 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Pertaining To Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Engaged In The Business Of Security Agency. The Appellant Filed His Return Of Income On 17.08.2020, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 46,84,309/- & The Same Was Assessed U/S 143(1) On 11-12-2020 At The Income Of Rs.87,33,921/- Wherein The Cpc Made The Disallowance On Account Of Delayed Payment Of Employees Contribution Towards Pf/Esi U/S 36(1)(Va) Of The Act. 3. Against This Order, The Assessee Preferred Appeal Before Ld.Cit(A) Who Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Vide Impugned Order Dated 29.11.2023 Thus, The Assessee Is In Appeal Before Us.

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

86 (iii) (iv) Oracle India Pvt Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2008) 13 DTR 371 (v) Improvement Trust, Ludhiana vs Ujagar Singh & Ors. in Civil Appeal No.2395/2008 5. On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue vehemently opposed the condonation of delay and submits that there is inordinate delay of 338 days and no proper explanation

DILESHWAR NATH,DELHI vs. JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD 68(5), DELHI, RANGE CODE- 73, DELHI

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

ITA 74/DEL/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

86 (iii) (iv) Oracle India Pvt Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2008) 13 DTR 371 (v) Improvement Trust, Ludhiana vs Ujagar Singh & Ors. in Civil Appeal No.2395/2008 5. On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue vehemently opposed the condonation of delay and submits that there is inordinate delay of 734 days and no proper explanation

DILESHWAR NATH,NEW DELHI vs. JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD 68(5), DELHI, RANGE CODE- 73, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 75/DEL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

86 (iii) (iv) Oracle India Pvt Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2008) 13 DTR 371 (v) Improvement Trust, Ludhiana vs Ujagar Singh & Ors. in Civil Appeal No.2395/2008 5. On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue vehemently opposed the condonation of delay and submits that there is inordinate delay of 734 days and no proper explanation

DINESH JINDAL,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 74/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

86 (iii) (iv) Oracle India Pvt Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2008) 13 DTR 371 (v) Improvement Trust, Ludhiana vs Ujagar Singh & Ors. in Civil Appeal No.2395/2008 5. On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue vehemently opposed the condonation of delay and submits that there is inordinate delay of 734 days and no proper explanation

CONPLEX TELECOM INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 4(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1951/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 145Section 145(3)Section 271(1)(c)

86,386/-); employee benefits (Rs. 58,97,807/-); finance cost (Rs. 3,99,067/-); depreciation and amortisation expense (Rs. 55,184/-) and other expenses (Rs. 1,73,70,032/-). The Ld. AO also noticed that the assessee has shown huge creditors of Rs. 3,39,34,590/- out of total purchases

SHRI CHETAN SETH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2984/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara\Nand\Nshri Brajesh Kumar Singh\Nita Nos.1808/Del/2023 & 2983, 2984 & 2985/Del/2015\N[Assessment Years: 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08]\Nshri Chetan Seth,\Nplot No.14, Lcs, Sector-B-1,\Nvasant Kunj,\Nnew Delhi-110070\Npan-Aolps2992A\Nappellant\Nincome Tax Officer,\Nward-15(3),\Nvs New Delhi\Nrespondent\Nappellant By\Nrespondent By\Nshri Arun Kishore, Ca &\Nshri Alok Suri, Ca\Nshri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr.\N(Dr)\Ndate Of Hearing\Ndate Of Pronouncement\N28.03.2025\N25.06.2025\Norder\Nper Brajesh Kumar Singh, Am,\Nthese Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The\Norder Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Delhi, Dated\N24.02.2015 For Ay 2004-05, 27.02.2015 For Ay 2005-06, 2006-07 And\N2007-08 Respectively Arising Out Of Assessment Orders Passed U/S 147/144\Nof The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To ‘The Act') Dated\N31.10.2011 For All The Above Assessment Years, Respectively. Since, The\Nissues Are Common & Connected, Hence, These Appeals Were Heard\Ntogether & Are Disposed Of By This Common Order.\N2. First, We Shall Take Up The Ita No.1808/Del/2023 Pertaining To Ay\N2004-05.\N2.

Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)

condone the delay of 2947 days and admit this appeal for\nhearing.\n3. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No.1808/Del/2023\nfor AY 2004-05 are as under:-\n\"1. 1. That the CIT (A) erred on facts and in law in not\nholding that the assessment order passed by the assessing\nofficer under section 147/144

PRATEEK GUPTA,GHAZIABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3715/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shamim Yahya & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No. 3715/Del/2023, (A.Y. 2015-16) Prateek Gupta, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 152, Chanderpuri, Ward-2(1) Ghaziabad, Ghaziabad Uttar Pradesh 201001 Atbpg8602J Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

86 days in filing of appeal was occurred on account of Inadvertent mistake on part of the counsel and same being supported from affidavit, the action of CIT(A) in dismissing the appeal without condoning the delay is highly arbitrary and unjustified. (iii) That there being reasonable circumstances for delay in filing of appeal, the CIT(A) ought to have

SURABHI SHODH SANSTHAN,DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE EXEMP 2(1), DELHI

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

ITA 3042/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year2017-18 Surabhi Shodh Sansthan Vs. Dcit, Circle Exemp-2(1), 1428 Maliwara , Chandni Civic Centre, Minto Road, Chowk Delhi 110006 New Delhi Pan No.Aapts1404B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80G(5)(vi)

delay in filing the Form 10 has specifically been conferred to CIT(Exemption), by way of circulars No. 7 of 2018 and 30 of 2019. AS on today the Form 10 has been uploaded by the appellant beyond the time limit prescribed and no condonation thereof from the CIT(Exemption ) is there. Therefore, at this juncture action

JOGENDER,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-1, REWARI

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

ITA 3042/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year2017-18 Surabhi Shodh Sansthan Vs. Dcit, Circle Exemp-2(1), 1428 Maliwara , Chandni Civic Centre, Minto Road, Chowk Delhi 110006 New Delhi Pan No.Aapts1404B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80G(5)(vi)

delay in filing the Form 10 has specifically been conferred to CIT(Exemption), by way of circulars No. 7 of 2018 and 30 of 2019. AS on today the Form 10 has been uploaded by the appellant beyond the time limit prescribed and no condonation thereof from the CIT(Exemption ) is there. Therefore, at this juncture action

PARVEEN BATRA,JAIPUR vs. CIRCLE - 3(1)(1), MUZAFFARNAGAR, MUZAFFARNAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3100/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Parveen Batra, Vs. Acit, Circle 3(1)(1), D – 82B, Siwad Parea, Muzaffarnagar. Krishna Marg, Bapu Nagar, Jaipur – 302 015 (Rajasthan). (Pan : Abwpb1332M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri R.S. Punia, Ca Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.09.2025 Date Of Order : 10.12.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 04.03.2025 For The Assessment Year 2020-21 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. That Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit (Appeals), Nfac Has Erred In Law & Facts In Not Condoning The Delay. Kindly Condone The Delay & Treat The Appeal As A Valid Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Punia, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)

condoned the delay of 5 days and dismissed the ground raised by the assessee and other grounds raised by the assessee are allowable as business expenditure and he brought to our notice the relevant facts as under. 3. Assessee is an individual and filed her return of income for AY 2020-21 on 12.02.2021 declaring total income at Rs.72,86