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.

6 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 92D(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai6Delhi6Chennai4Bangalore4Pune2Karnataka1Ahmedabad1Kolkata1

Key Topics

Section 80J7Section 143(3)6Section 2636Transfer Pricing4Section 92D3Section 1473Section 92C3Addition to Income3Section 271G

MANPOWERGROUP SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, DELHI , JHANDEWALAN EXTENSION, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3585/DEL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Sept 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 80JSection 92CSection 92D

1" appellate authority (even though there was a delay of 4 years in filing such claim) with a direction to the assessing officer that correctness of the claim may kindly be verified as per Section 80JJAA of the Act and if the Ld. AO finds the claim as correct then the same would be allowed to the assessee. The assessee

2
Section 92B2
Condonation of Delay2
Comparables/TP2

M/S. NOKIA SOLUTIONS AND NETWORKS INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 3169/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2006-07 Nokia Solutions & Networks India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, (Formerly Known As Nokia Siemens Circle-18(2), Networks Pvt. Ltd.), 7Th Floor, Room No. 406, Building No. 9A, Dlf Cyber City, C.R. Building, Sector 25A, I.P. Estate, Gurgaon-122002 New Delhi. (Pan: Aaccn3871F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Deepak Chopra, Adv. Respondent By: Shri T.M. Shiva Kumar, Cit Dr

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri T.M. Shiva Kumar, CIT DR
Section 10Section 254Section 92C

92D of the Act read with Rule 10D of the Rules. 4.3 That the learned TPO erred, on facts and in law, in using single year financial data (i.e. data for FY 2005-06 only) as against multiple year financial data used by the Appellant for determination of the arm's length price of impugned transaction. 4.4 That the learned

MAVENIR INDIA PVT. LTD. (EARLIER KNOWN AS COMVERSE NETWORK SYSTEM INDIA PVT. LTD.),GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 3(1), GURGOAN

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 801/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Anadee Nath Misshrar Assessment Year: 2016-17

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 92C(3)Section 92D

condone the delay of 25 days and admit the appeal for adjudication on merit. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, & in law the assessment order passed by the Additional / Joint / Deputy / Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/ Income-tax Officer, National e-Assessment Centre (‘the 3 Ld. AO’) under Section

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II vs. M/S JOHNSON MATTHEY INDIA P. LTD.

ITA/757/2014HC Delhi23 Dec 2014
Section 260ASection 271GSection 92DSection 92D(1)Section 92D(3)

delay in re-filing of 395 days is condoned. The application is allowed in view of the said statement. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 757/2014 This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act, for short) impugns order dated 31st August, 2012 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal, for short) affirming the finding of the Commissioner

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. SMR AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS INDIA LTD.

ITA - 164 / 2023HC Delhi20 Mar 2023
Section 40ASection 6Section 80Section 80ASection 92B

condonation of delay of 54 days in filing the appeal] 2. This appeal concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15. 3. Broadly, the only issue which arises for consideration is as to whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, “Tribunal] was correct in holding that the Specified Domestic Transactions (SDTs) did not attract the regime of transfer pricing, in view

SURYA ROSHNI LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 7, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1444/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Aug 2025AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)

1) dated 01.08.2016\nwherein the AO has asked the assessee to file as many as 23 details\n\nof the share applicant companies comprising of their names, PAN,\naddresses, date of applications, nos. of shares applied, amount of\napplication, amount of share premium, total amount invested, how\nis investor known, brokerage, complete details of the broker, date of\nallotment