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 23(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,026Chennai1,010Mumbai942Kolkata578Pune530Bangalore440Hyderabad407Ahmedabad386Jaipur323Chandigarh196Karnataka183Visakhapatnam158Nagpur148Surat138Raipur132Amritsar123Cochin120Indore101Lucknow100Cuttack73Panaji64Rajkot58Patna54Calcutta49Guwahati40SC37Jodhpur33Agra23Telangana22Allahabad14Jabalpur14Varanasi14Dehradun10Orissa6Ranchi5Rajasthan4Andhra Pradesh4A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2R.M. LODHA ANIL R. DAVE1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Kerala1DIPAK MISRA R.K. AGRAWAL PRAFULLA C. PANT1Himachal Pradesh1Gauhati1

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

1) of Section 34. [10]. In the present case, the Chief Engineer had signed the agreement on behalf of union of India entered into with the respondent. In the arbitral proceedings the chief Engineer represented the Union of India and the notices, during the proceedings of the arbitration, were served on the chief Engineer. Even the arbitral award clearly mentions