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.

109 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 131clear

Sorted by relevance

Kolkata289Chennai212Delhi195Mumbai190Karnataka109Ahmedabad93Bangalore83Jaipur80Chandigarh55Hyderabad54Calcutta45Pune39Surat34Indore34Rajkot22Panaji19Visakhapatnam18Nagpur16Lucknow13Guwahati11Amritsar9Cochin8Jabalpur7Raipur7Telangana6Jodhpur5Varanasi5Kerala4Agra4SC3Orissa2Dehradun2Patna2Cuttack1Andhra Pradesh1Allahabad1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 26010Section 94Double Taxation/DTAA4Section 672Section 782Section 9(1)(vii)2Section 342Addition to Income2

M/S M.B. PATIL CONSTRUCTIONS LTD. vs. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER AND ANR

WP/223253/2020HC Karnataka15 Jul 2022

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice S.Vishwajith Shetty W.P.No.223253/2020 (Gm-Res) C/W W.P.No.223254/2020 (Gm-Res), W.P.No.223255/2020 (Gm-Res), W.P.No.223256/2020 (Gm-Res) Between: M/S. M.B.Patil Constructions Ltd., Having Corporate Office At 2Nd Floor, Commercial Building No.1, Opp. Income Tax Building, Shankarsheth Road, Swaragate, Pune - 411 042, Maharashtra State. Rep. By Sri M.S.Mallikarjuna By His Gpa Holder, Sri Dhanaji Venkatrao Patil, Aged About 43 Years, Occ: Business, R/O Plot No.10, Konark Aditya Block, Golibar Maidan Chowk, Camp Pune - 411 001. …Petitioner

Section 34Section 34(3)Section 5

Section 34 of the 1996 Act. The delay of 131 days cannot be condoned. To do so, as the High

MURALIDHAR KAMATH vs. THE RECOVERY OFFICER

WP/16800/2015HC Karnataka07 Sept 2015

The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice A S Bopanna

Showing 1–20 of 109 · Page 1 of 6

Bench:

delay was condoned by the DRT and if the recall of the order dated 06.03.2012 was made and the matter was considered, what would have arisen for consideration in 15 fact would have been the validity of the order dated 03.09.2010 passed in DCP No.2554 in OA No.394/1995. 11. If that be the position, keeping in view the similar nature

SATHISH KAMATH vs. THE RECOVERY OFFICER

WP/15523/2015HC Karnataka07 Sept 2015

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice A S Bopanna

delay was condoned by the DRT and if the recall of the order dated 06.03.2012 was made and the matter was considered, what would have arisen for consideration in 15 fact would have been the validity of the order dated 03.09.2010 passed in DCP No.2554 in OA No.394/1995. 11. If that be the position, keeping in view the similar nature

M/S ASHOK KUMAR BACHAWAR (HUF) vs. UNION OF INDIA

WP/106714/2016HC Karnataka23 Sept 2016

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice P.S.Dinesh Kumar Writ Petition No. 106714/2016 (T-Tar) & Writ Petition No.106796/2016 Between : M/S. Ashok Kumar Bachawat (Huf) Plot No.4, Adarsha Colony, Radio Park, Bellary-583101, Karnataka (Represented By Mr.Ashok Kumar Bachawat S/O Shir. Bhikarechand Bachawat Karta Of Huf Aged About 58 Years). ... Petitioner (By Sri B. G. Chidananda Urs, Advocate) & : 1. Union Of India Ministry Of Finance Represented By Its Secretary, North Block, New Delhi-110001 2. The Commissioner Of Central Excise No.71, Club Road, Belgaum-590001 3. The Joint Commissioner Of Service Tax Office Of The Commissioner Of Central Excise No.71, Club Road, Belgaum-590001. ... Respondents These Writ Petitions Are Filed Under Articles 226 & 227 Of The Constitution Of India, Praying To Quash The Impugned Order Dated 29.02.2016/04.03.2016 Is Enclosed As Annexure-D, Passed By Respondent No.3.

Section 67Section 73(2)Section 75Section 77(2)Section 78

Section 78 of the Act, would be reduced to 25% of the service tax, provided the entire amount of service tax and the interest thereon and the reduced penalty are paid within 30 days from the date of receipt of the said order. The said Order-in-Original is challenged in this writ petition. 4. Sri B.G. Chidanand Urs, learned

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S IBM AUSTRALIA LIMITED

ITA/10/2025HC Karnataka01 Aug 2025

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

Section 260Section 9

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 2. The Revenue has filed the present appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] impugning an order dated 20.05.2024 [impugned order] passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [ITAT], in a batch of appeals. 3. The present appeal is confined to the impugned order insofar

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S IBM AUSTRALIA LIMITED

ITA/11/2025HC Karnataka01 Aug 2025

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

Section 260Section 9

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 2. The Revenue has filed the present appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] impugning an order dated 20.05.2024 [impugned order] passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [ITAT], in a batch of appeals. 3. The present appeal is confined to the impugned order

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. IBM CORPORATION

ITA/99/2025HC Karnataka01 Aug 2025

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

Section 139(1)Section 148Section 260Section 9Section 9(1)(vii)

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 2. The Revenue has filed the present appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] impugning an order dated 20.05.2024 [impugned order] passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [ITAT], in a batch of appeals. 3. The present appeal is confined to the impugned order insofar

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) vs. M/S IBM AUSTRALIA LIMITED

ITA/12/2025HC Karnataka31 Jul 2025

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

Section 260Section 9Section 9(1)(vii)

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 2. The Revenue has filed the present appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] impugning an order dated 20.05.2024 [impugned order] passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [ITAT], in a batch of appeals

COMMISSIONER OF vs. MOOKAMBIKA TEMPLE

ITA/170/2016HC Karnataka30 Aug 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 11(2)Section 14Section 15Section 260

condone delay in filing Form No.10 and consider the claim of assessee with regard to claim under section 11(2) even when the assessing authority had rightly denied claim in accordance with law? Date of Judgment 30-08-2018 I.T.A.No.170/2016 Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) & Anr. Vs. Mookambika Temple. 5/13 3. The learned counsel for Revenue submits that substantial

KHALEEL AHMED K R vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/27674/2012HC Karnataka21 Jun 2016

Bench: B.VEERAPPA,K.NATARAJAN

Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code to prosecute Sri Monnappa. The CID filed criminal case in No.5540/2008 before the 4th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bangalore. The charge sheet was also filed in the above case on 14.3.2008 and the matter is pending before the Court. Enquiry has also been contemplated against one Sri K.Rameshwarappa, the Deputy Director

RAMA vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/27625/2019HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

SECTIONS 2, 7, 11, 20 OF THE KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING AND PROHIBITION ACT OF 2011 AS VOID, ARBITRARY, UNJUST AS THEY ARE VIOLATIVE OF PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. IN W.P. NO.22817/2018: BETWEEN: SRI. MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA R/AT H. THIMMAPURA VILLAGE 122 BELENHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 228. ...PETITIONER

SRI. GURUPRASAD vs. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA

WP/8176/2019HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

SECTIONS 2, 7, 11, 20 OF THE KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING AND PROHIBITION ACT OF 2011 AS VOID, ARBITRARY, UNJUST AS THEY ARE VIOLATIVE OF PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. IN W.P. NO.22817/2018: BETWEEN: SRI. MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA R/AT H. THIMMAPURA VILLAGE 122 BELENHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 228. ...PETITIONER

BORALINGAIAH vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/33339/2018HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

SECTIONS 2, 7, 11, 20 OF THE KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING AND PROHIBITION ACT OF 2011 AS VOID, ARBITRARY, UNJUST AS THEY ARE VIOLATIVE OF PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. IN W.P. NO.22817/2018: BETWEEN: SRI. MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA R/AT H. THIMMAPURA VILLAGE 122 BELENHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 228. ...PETITIONER

MR C V MANJUNATHA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/235/2018HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

SECTIONS 2, 7, 11, 20 OF THE KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING AND PROHIBITION ACT OF 2011 AS VOID, ARBITRARY, UNJUST AS THEY ARE VIOLATIVE OF PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. IN W.P. NO.22817/2018: BETWEEN: SRI. MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA R/AT H. THIMMAPURA VILLAGE 122 BELENHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 228. ...PETITIONER

SMT. V.KRISHNAMMA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/36324/2017HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

SECTIONS 2, 7, 11, 20 OF THE KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING AND PROHIBITION ACT OF 2011 AS VOID, ARBITRARY, UNJUST AS THEY ARE VIOLATIVE OF PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. IN W.P. NO.22817/2018: BETWEEN: SRI. MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA R/AT H. THIMMAPURA VILLAGE 122 BELENHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 228. ...PETITIONER

P. D. PONNAPPA vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/12975/2019HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

SECTIONS 2, 7, 11, 20 OF THE KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING AND PROHIBITION ACT OF 2011 AS VOID, ARBITRARY, UNJUST AS THEY ARE VIOLATIVE OF PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. IN W.P. NO.22817/2018: BETWEEN: SRI. MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA R/AT H. THIMMAPURA VILLAGE 122 BELENHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 228. ...PETITIONER

SRI SANTOSH A SHETTY vs. THE STATE OF KARANTAKA

WP/29668/2019HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

SECTIONS 2, 7, 11, 20 OF THE KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING AND PROHIBITION ACT OF 2011 AS VOID, ARBITRARY, UNJUST AS THEY ARE VIOLATIVE OF PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. IN W.P. NO.22817/2018: BETWEEN: SRI. MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA R/AT H. THIMMAPURA VILLAGE 122 BELENHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 228. ...PETITIONER

S B JAGADEESH vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/51160/2017HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

SECTIONS 2, 7, 11, 20 OF THE KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING AND PROHIBITION ACT OF 2011 AS VOID, ARBITRARY, UNJUST AS THEY ARE VIOLATIVE OF PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. IN W.P. NO.22817/2018: BETWEEN: SRI. MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA R/AT H. THIMMAPURA VILLAGE 122 BELENHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 228. ...PETITIONER

RAJAPPA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/50955/2019HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

SECTIONS 2, 7, 11, 20 OF THE KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING AND PROHIBITION ACT OF 2011 AS VOID, ARBITRARY, UNJUST AS THEY ARE VIOLATIVE OF PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. IN W.P. NO.22817/2018: BETWEEN: SRI. MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA R/AT H. THIMMAPURA VILLAGE 122 BELENHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 228. ...PETITIONER

SRI SANJAY JAYARAM vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/15270/2018HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

SECTIONS 2, 7, 11, 20 OF THE KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING AND PROHIBITION ACT OF 2011 AS VOID, ARBITRARY, UNJUST AS THEY ARE VIOLATIVE OF PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. IN W.P. NO.22817/2018: BETWEEN: SRI. MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA R/AT H. THIMMAPURA VILLAGE 122 BELENHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 228. ...PETITIONER