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 254(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai229Surat139Delhi129Chennai120Kolkata75Ahmedabad67Jaipur60Bangalore45Rajkot34Raipur32Pune30Hyderabad27Indore25Visakhapatnam21Lucknow20Chandigarh18Cochin12Nagpur11Guwahati9Cuttack8Varanasi5Allahabad5SC4Agra3Amritsar3Patna3Panaji2Dehradun2Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 246A(1)(b)4Section 92C2Transfer Pricing2

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, DEHRADUN vs. BG EXPLORATION PRODUCDTION INDIA LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 105/DDN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun15 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal(Through Video Conferencing)

Section 246A(1)(b)Section 92C

254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), respectively. Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. It transpires during the course of hearing that there arises the first and foremost legal issue of validity of the learned CIT(A)’s identical impugned lower appellate order for the facts stated hereunder. 3. The assessee/respondent appears

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, DEHRADUN vs. BG EXPLORATION, MUMBAI

ITA 107/DDN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun15 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal(Through Video Conferencing)

Section 246A(1)(b)
Section 92C

254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), respectively. Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. It transpires during the course of hearing that there arises the first and foremost legal issue of validity of the learned CIT(A)’s identical impugned lower appellate order for the facts stated hereunder. 3. The assessee/respondent appears