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.

2 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 230clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai103Karnataka101Mumbai101Pune91Delhi77Bangalore66Jaipur48Hyderabad41Kolkata38Ahmedabad33Visakhapatnam31Cochin25Indore13Panaji11Surat11Lucknow8Nagpur8Raipur6Guwahati5Chandigarh5Dehradun5Jodhpur4Rajkot4Patna4Agra3Cuttack3SC3Calcutta2Allahabad2Amritsar2Rajasthan1Andhra Pradesh1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 343Section 36(1)3Section 36(2)2

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATA vs. TANUJ PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED

The appeal stands disposed of with the above direction

ITAT/116/2025HC Calcutta14 Jul 2025

Bench: : The Hon'Ble The Chief Justice T.S Sivagnanam -A N D- Hon'Ble Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) Date : 14Th July, 2025.

Section 260A

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) challenging the order dated 19.2.2024 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “C” Bench, Kolkata (the Tribunal) in ITA/1045/Kol/2023 for the assessment year 2012- 13. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration : “1. Whether the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has committed substantial error

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5 KOLKATA vs. PREMIER TIE UP PVT LTD

ITAT/81/2022HC Calcutta26 Sept 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA

Mr. Dhruba Ghosh, Adv
For Respondent:
Section 34Section 36(1)Section 36(2)

delaying a decision on such application cannot midway turn around and decide not to pursue the challenge application, and then prefer an independent application under Section 14 of the Act before the Court, basically on the same ground raised in the former, urging that de jure inability of the arbitrator disqualifies him to continue proceedings. The learned Judge was right