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.

226 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 91clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai370Chennai319Delhi226Kolkata198Bangalore180Ahmedabad143Karnataka124Hyderabad104Chandigarh94Jaipur89Nagpur87Pune69Indore50Surat44Raipur37Calcutta37Visakhapatnam31Patna29Cochin25Lucknow23Rajkot22Kerala17Cuttack17Guwahati15SC9Amritsar9Agra8Allahabad8Telangana6Rajasthan5Jodhpur5Panaji4Jabalpur4Varanasi4Andhra Pradesh1Orissa1

Key Topics

Section 6886Addition to Income79Section 143(3)56Section 14750Disallowance37Condonation of Delay34Section 153C32Section 143(1)30Section 148

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 6, NEW DELHI vs. NEC TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed\nas time barred

ITA 7392/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jul 2025AY 2010-11
Section 143Section 144C(5)Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

91,383/- and by doing so the Ld. DRP ignored the fact that\nthe case was not covered by exception carved out by section 9(1)\n(vii) (b) of the Act.\n\n8. At the outset, it is noticed that this appeal filed, after\ninordinate delay of 1021 days i.e. on 08-12-2017with endorsement\nat the bottom

SHAFA HOME,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, (EXEMPTION) WARD 2(1), NEW DELHI

Appeal stands allowed for statistical

ITA 725/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed

Showing 1–20 of 226 · Page 1 of 12

...
27
Section 14A25
Section 143(2)23
Search & Seizure14
ITAT Delhi
31 Jul 2023
AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 13(9)Section 143(3)

91 ITR (T) 56 (Chandigarh ITAT), in paras 17 & 18 of its order dated 30.07.2021 has observed as under: “17. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. In the present case it is not in dispute that as per section 11(2) of the Act read with Rule

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

EAST END APARTMENTS CGHS LTD,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 60(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed as above terms for statistical purposes

ITA 5054/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148ASection 249(3)Section 250

section 69A of the Act. It is therefore, submitted that delay in filing the 6 East and Apartment CGHS Ltd. appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) be condoned and matter be restored to the file of the AO for deciding afresh as denovo. 6. On the other hand, the Ld. DR supported the assessment order as well

SANJEEV MEHTA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-70(1), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 353/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma, Judicialmember Sa No.49/Del./2024 (In Ita No.353/Del/2024) (Assessment Year : 2019-20) & Sanjeev Mehta Vs. Acit, Circle 70(1), G-1, Vishwa Apartment, New Delhi. 3, Shankaracharya Marg, Civil Lines, New Delhi – 110 054. (Pan: Aaapm5622L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, Adv. Revenue By : Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Order : 13.09.2024 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman, Am : This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (For Short ‘Ld. Cit (A)’)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 20.03.2023 For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2 Since We Have Disposed Off The Appeal In The Instant Case By This Order, The Stay Application Filed By The Assessee Has Become Infructuous, Hence Dismissed.

For Appellant: Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 253(5)Section 5

condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Brief facts of the case are, assessee is an individual filed its return of income and while processing the return of income under section 143(1) of the Act claimed tax relief on the income earned outside India and assessee has submitted details of income earned outside India

SH. JAGDEEP SINGH,PANIPAT vs. ITO, PANIPAT

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

ITA 1462/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.S. Sainiassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 194Section 194CSection 40

91 taxmann.com 241 (Del.) where it was held that the assessee filed its return after five months and nearly after a period of four years and appealed for condonation of delay in filing the return before the CBDT for the sole reason of illness of auditor. The same cannot be condoned for want of details of illness and proof namely

GOODVIEW TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,LAXMI NAGAR DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE NOIDA, NOIDA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3327/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 132Section 153CSection 68

Section 153C r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) passed by the DCIT, Central Circle, Noida (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Ld. AO’) pertaining to A.Y. 2011-12. 2. A search & seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted on 09/10/2013 on the premises of the assessee comprising Shubhkamna

HILLVIEW TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,LAXMI NAGAR DELHI vs. DCIT, NOIDA UTTAR PRADESH

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3326/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2011-12]

Section 132Section 153CSection 68

Section 153C r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) passed by the DCIT, Central Circle, Noida (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Ld. AO’) pertaining to A.Y. 2011-12. 2. A search & seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted on 09/10/2013 on the premises of the assessee comprising Shubhkamna

HUGHES COMTEL PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-11(1), DELHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3651/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 40ASection 43B

91,356/- on account of bonus to employees and Rs.19,53,400/- on account of provision for gratuity were made under section 43B and 40A(7) of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee filed rectification application under section 154 of the Act well in time. Later after 4 years and 07 months, the assessee filed first appeal against the processing order

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

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

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.,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

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

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

M/S PETRONET LNG LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1197/DEL/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri G.C. Gupta & Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vikram Sahay, Sr. DR
Section 156

section 156 of the Act on assessee on 21.11.2006, despite the fact that, it had not been disputed that no Notice of demand had been served on assessee in Petronet LNG Ltd. vs. DCIT respect of the said order of assessment and time to file an appeal commences with the service of notice of demand and no valid appeal could

ACIT CIRCLE 54(1), NEW DELHI vs. SWADESH KUMAR MISHRA, GURGAON

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee i

ITA 6043/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Sept 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144(1)Section 145(3)Section 24Section 40Section 40A(3)

91,60,604.00 To Washing Charges 80,73,560.00 To Weaving Charges 1,83,66,510.00 To Gross Profits 1,43,29,590.56 Total 1,60,207.02 36,66,81,363.24 Total 1,60,207.02 36,66,81,363.24 From the above, it can be noticed that the assessee has achieved GP of 0.50% of sales in the Trading Activities

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

CLAAS INDIA PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 4644/DEL/2009[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Sept 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Ms. Suchitra Kamble :U/S 2001-02

For Appellant: Shri Alkesh Babbar CAFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Saroha Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 200Section 80Section 80HSection 80I

condone the delay in filing the appeal. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed return of income declaring income of Rs. 8,10,12,600/-. Regular assessment u/s 143(3) was completed on 24.2.2004 at an income of Rs. 8,91,11,357/-. Subsequently, the AO noticed that assessee had claimed and was allowed deduction