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 13(1)(c)clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai1,332Delhi1,101Mumbai1,014Kolkata725Bangalore587Pune546Jaipur368Hyderabad327Ahmedabad320Karnataka219Chandigarh197Surat195Raipur154Visakhapatnam131Indore129Amritsar115Nagpur104Lucknow99Cuttack88Panaji83Rajkot77Cochin70SC49Calcutta46Patna39Guwahati26Telangana23Allahabad22Agra21Jodhpur18Dehradun17Varanasi16Jabalpur11Ranchi7Kerala5Orissa5A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2Himachal Pradesh2Rajasthan2R.M. LODHA ANIL R. DAVE1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Andhra Pradesh1DIPAK MISRA R.K. AGRAWAL PRAFULLA C. PANT1Gauhati1

Key Topics

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

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

delayed and the deduction was claimed after the completion of the audit.” Regarding the issue as to whether the deduction claimed under Section 80IB in a non-est return be allowed or not, learned ITAT held that non-est return does not exist in the eyes of law, hence no beneficial use or adverse conclusion can be drawn from such

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

13. In Chintels India Ltd v. Bhayana Builders Pvt. Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 4028 of 2020, a three Judge bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court holds, “[ ]. A reading of section 34(1) would make it clear that an application made to set aside an award has to be in accordance with both sub-sections (2) and (3). This would mean