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”+ Penaltyclear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai1,432Mumbai1,411Delhi964Pune665Kolkata592Ahmedabad464Bangalore405Jaipur390Hyderabad309Surat239Chandigarh200Indore183Karnataka175Cochin159Nagpur153Raipur153Lucknow147Rajkot138Visakhapatnam117Cuttack112Amritsar84Patna73Agra59Calcutta54Guwahati43Panaji31Ranchi30SC27Jabalpur25Dehradun24Jodhpur19Allahabad18Telangana12Varanasi12Orissa4Punjab & Haryana2Himachal Pradesh2Rajasthan1VIKRAMAJIT SEN SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 80I6Section 345Section 804Section 139(1)3Section 1392

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SHIMLA vs. MS SOLAN DISTRICT TRUCK OPERATORS TRANSPORT COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD DARLAGHAT THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT

ITA/3/2020HC Himachal Pradesh27 Aug 2020

Bench: This Court. 2. On 29Th March 2019, The State Of Hp Filed The Objections Under Section 34 Of The Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (After Now Called ‘The Arbitration Act’) Against The Award Of Ld. Arbitrator Announced On 8Th December 2018. Since The Period Of Three Months Expired On 9Th March, Hence The Objections Accompanied An Application Under Section 34 Of The Arbitration Act To Condone The Delay On The Grounds That The Objections Were Filed Within Permissible 30 Days After The Expiry Of The Statutory Period Of Three Months. 1Whether Reporters Of Local Papers May Be Allowed To See The Judgment?

For Appellant: Mr. B.C. Negi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Parvesh Negi
Section 34

condoned the delay. The Bench also relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Northern Railway v. Pioneer Publicity Corporation Private Limited, (2017) 11, SCC 234, wherein it was held as follows: - “[4]. We find that said Section 34(3) has no application in re- filing the petition but only applies to the initial filing of the objections

Pr. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SHIMLA vs. HP HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (HIMUDA)

Appeal is dismissed

ITA/35/2019HC Himachal Pradesh22 Dec 2023

Bench: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MAMIDANNA SATYA RATNA SRI RAMACHANDRA RAO,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTSNA REWAL DUA

For Appellant: Ms. Vandana Kuthiala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Vishal Mohan, Senior Advocate, with
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80Section 80ASection 80I

condonation of delay as under :- “9. The main issue raised by the assessee in this case is that the delay in audit has led to delay in filing of return which had led to his claim of 80IB(10) being disallowed and this had caused genuine hardship to him. It should be noted first that disallowance of any claim will