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.

1 result for “condonation of delay”+ Section 10(26)clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai833Delhi784Mumbai705Kolkata472Bangalore338Pune320Hyderabad260Ahmedabad255Jaipur247Karnataka149Chandigarh131Raipur115Surat115Nagpur112Amritsar102Indore94Lucknow79Panaji76Visakhapatnam70Cuttack57Rajkot51Calcutta38SC36Guwahati33Cochin31Patna27Allahabad17Telangana17Varanasi13Jodhpur13Agra8Dehradun6Jabalpur6Orissa4Rajasthan4A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2Ranchi2Kerala1DIPAK MISRA R.K. AGRAWAL PRAFULLA C. PANT1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Gauhati1Himachal Pradesh1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 345

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

10 was filed beyond three months plus 30 days, and no provision of law would empower the Court to condone the delay beyond such 30 days. Therefore, the appellant contends that the learned Single Judge could not have condoned the delay. On the contrary, the contention on behalf of the respondent-State is that the delay