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.

118 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 153clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi371Chennai368Mumbai214Bangalore178Karnataka118Jaipur103Hyderabad90Kolkata90Chandigarh83Amritsar60Ahmedabad46Pune38Surat33Indore31Nagpur30Kerala17Cuttack17Panaji17Rajkot14Lucknow11Cochin10Telangana8Guwahati8Raipur8Visakhapatnam7Dehradun7Jodhpur7SC7Rajasthan5Orissa4Calcutta4Andhra Pradesh3Jabalpur3Patna2Allahabad2Varanasi2Agra1DIPAK MISRA R.K. AGRAWAL PRAFULLA C. PANT1

Key Topics

Section 26048Section 12A16Section 94Section 10(20)4Section 1434Double Taxation/DTAA4Exemption4Revision u/s 2634Section 9(1)(vii)

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

ITA/385/2018HC Karnataka29 Sept 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 260

condoning the delay. Thus, the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Meeta Gutgutia has reached finality. 22. The Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Murli Agro Products Ltd., [ITA No.36/2009, D.D. 29.10.2010] has held thus: “9. What Section 153A contemplates is that, notwithstanding

THE PR. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

ITA/198/2021HC Karnataka29 Sept 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 260

Showing 1–20 of 118 · Page 1 of 6

2

condoning the delay. Thus, the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Meeta Gutgutia has reached finality. 22. The Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Murli Agro Products Ltd., [ITA No.36/2009, D.D. 29.10.2010] has held thus: “9. What Section 153A contemplates is that, notwithstanding

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

ITA/382/2018HC Karnataka29 Sept 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 260

condoning the delay. Thus, the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Meeta Gutgutia has reached finality. 22. The Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Murli Agro Products Ltd., [ITA No.36/2009, D.D. 29.10.2010] has held thus: “9. What Section 153A contemplates is that, notwithstanding

THE PR. COMMISIONER INCOME TAX vs. M/S. GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

ITA/197/2021HC Karnataka29 Sept 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 260

condoning the delay. Thus, the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Meeta Gutgutia has reached finality. 22. The Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Murli Agro Products Ltd., [ITA No.36/2009, D.D. 29.10.2010] has held thus: “9. What Section 153A contemplates is that, notwithstanding

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

ITA/383/2018HC Karnataka29 Sept 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 260

condoning the delay. Thus, the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Meeta Gutgutia has reached finality. 22. The Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Murli Agro Products Ltd., [ITA No.36/2009, D.D. 29.10.2010] has held thus: “9. What Section 153A contemplates is that, notwithstanding

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

ITA/381/2018HC Karnataka29 Sept 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 260

condoning the delay. Thus, the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Meeta Gutgutia has reached finality. 22. The Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Murli Agro Products Ltd., [ITA No.36/2009, D.D. 29.10.2010] has held thus: “9. What Section 153A contemplates is that, notwithstanding

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

ITA/380/2018HC Karnataka29 Sept 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 260

condoning the delay. Thus, the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Meeta Gutgutia has reached finality. 22. The Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Murli Agro Products Ltd., [ITA No.36/2009, D.D. 29.10.2010] has held thus: “9. What Section 153A contemplates is that, notwithstanding

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) vs. M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT. LTD.,

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

ITA/324/2018HC Karnataka29 Sept 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 260

condoning the delay. Thus, the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Meeta Gutgutia has reached finality. 22. The Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Murli Agro Products Ltd., [ITA No.36/2009, D.D. 29.10.2010] has held thus: “9. What Section 153A contemplates is that, notwithstanding

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

ITA/384/2018HC Karnataka29 Sept 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 260

condoning the delay. Thus, the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Meeta Gutgutia has reached finality. 22. The Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Murli Agro Products Ltd., [ITA No.36/2009, D.D. 29.10.2010] has held thus: “9. What Section 153A contemplates is that, notwithstanding

THE PR. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

ITA/199/2021HC Karnataka29 Sept 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 260

condoning the delay. Thus, the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Meeta Gutgutia has reached finality. 22. The Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Murli Agro Products Ltd., [ITA No.36/2009, D.D. 29.10.2010] has held thus: “9. What Section 153A contemplates is that, notwithstanding

M/S NEW MANGALORE PORT TRUST vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP/44117/2014HC Karnataka06 Jun 2018

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice B. Veerappa

Section 10(20)Section 12ASection 143

condoned the delay and directed the Commissioner of Income Tax, Mangalore to grant registration under Section 12A w.e.f. 1.4.2003. The Tribunal also taken note of the fact that the assessee was granted exemption under the provisions of Section 10(20) of the Act till 31.3.2003. Accordingly, the appeal came to be allowed. 12 13. It is also not in dispute

M/S NEW MANGALORE PORT TRUST vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP/44116/2014HC Karnataka06 Jun 2018

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice B. Veerappa

Section 10(20)Section 12ASection 143

condoned the delay and directed the Commissioner of Income Tax, Mangalore to grant registration under Section 12A w.e.f. 1.4.2003. The Tribunal also taken note of the fact that the assessee was granted exemption under the provisions of Section 10(20) of the Act till 31.3.2003. Accordingly, the appeal came to be allowed. 12 13. It is also not in dispute

M/S NEW MANGALORE PORT TRUST vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP/44118/2014HC Karnataka06 Jun 2018

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice B. Veerappa

Section 10(20)Section 12ASection 143

condoned the delay and directed the Commissioner of Income Tax, Mangalore to grant registration under Section 12A w.e.f. 1.4.2003. The Tribunal also taken note of the fact that the assessee was granted exemption under the provisions of Section 10(20) of the Act till 31.3.2003. Accordingly, the appeal came to be allowed. 12 13. It is also not in dispute

M/S NEW MANGALORE PORT TRUST vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP/44120/2014HC Karnataka06 Jun 2018

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice B. Veerappa

Section 10(20)Section 12ASection 143

condoned the delay and directed the Commissioner of Income Tax, Mangalore to grant registration under Section 12A w.e.f. 1.4.2003. The Tribunal also taken note of the fact that the assessee was granted exemption under the provisions of Section 10(20) of the Act till 31.3.2003. Accordingly, the appeal came to be allowed. 12 13. It is also not in dispute

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

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

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