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.

232 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 2(14)clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai1,700Delhi1,640Mumbai1,553Kolkata940Pune864Bangalore833Hyderabad595Jaipur510Ahmedabad493Nagpur329Raipur291Surat287Chandigarh268Karnataka232Visakhapatnam223Indore190Amritsar173Cochin145Cuttack132Lucknow118Rajkot113Panaji103Patna66Calcutta62SC50Jodhpur38Guwahati36Agra34Telangana30Dehradun30Allahabad29Varanasi19Jabalpur15Ranchi9Rajasthan7Orissa6Kerala5Himachal Pradesh4Andhra Pradesh4A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2R.M. LODHA ANIL R. DAVE1Punjab & Haryana1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1DIPAK MISRA R.K. AGRAWAL PRAFULLA C. PANT1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 234E84Section 26058Section 12A31Section 260A28TDS26Section 143(3)14Section 12A(2)12Exemption12Revision u/s 263

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

2) of Section 34 of the Act of 1996 provides the ground on which the arbitral award may be set- aside by the Court and sub-section 3 of Section 34 of the Act of 1996 provides for the period of limitation for filing an application under Section 34 of the Act of 1996. 14. Section

DR(SMT) SUJATHA RAMESH vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES

Showing 1–20 of 232 · Page 1 of 12

...
11
Deduction10
Addition to Income9
Section 1488
WP/54672/2015
HC Karnataka
24 Oct 2017

Bench: The Hon'Ble Dr.Justice Vineet Kothari

Section 119Section 119(2)(b)Section 119(2)(c)Section 54Section 54E

section 119 (2)(b) should have been construed liberally even when the petitioner has complied with all the conditions mentioned in Circular dated October 12, 1993. The Legislature has conferred the power to condone delay to enable the authorities to do substantive justice to the parties by disposing of the matters on the merits. The expression ‘genuine’ has received

SARVODAYA EDUCATION TRUST vs. THE UNION OF INDIA

WP/39434/2013HC Karnataka03 Aug 2017

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ashok B. Hinchigeri

Section 1Section 2(1)

delay in the payment of gratuity and whether the Controlling 48 Authority’s permission is obtained by the employer for not paying the gratuity. If an employee has not made an application/s for the payment of gratuity before the employer/Controlling Authority, or if he has not produced the documents in support of his claims, the proviso to Section

SRI. DEVENDRA PAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP/52305/2018HC Karnataka08 Oct 2021

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadav Writ Petition No. 52305/2018 (T-It) Between: Sri. Devendra Pai S/O. Late Narasimha Pai No. 1012, "Udaya", 2Nd Cross, Vivekananda Circle, Mysore - 23. … Petitioner (By Sri. S. Shankar, Senior Advocate As Amicus Curiae Sri. S. Parthasarathi, Advocate) And: 1. The Assistant Commissioner Of

Section 10Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 264Section 89(1)

2)(b) of the Act is enclosed at Annexure-F. 6. The respondent – Authority by its order at Annexure-G has rejected the application for condonation of delay as time barred as return of income could not be condoned after 6 years from the end of the assessment year and thereby foreclosing the processing of revised return. 7. Petitioner

NAVANIDHI VIVIDHODDESHA vs. PRL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP/29110/2019HC Karnataka19 Sept 2019

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice P.B. Bajanthri

2. The gist of the matters are as under: Case No. Reason for condonation of delay WP No.28871/19 Balkuru Halu Utpadakara Sahakara Sangha Annexure “A” condonation of delay application. Delay is 134 days in filing Return. Newly Registered Society. First year of filing of Return. Unaware of provisions of the Income Tax Act. WP 28872/2019 Keradi Milk Producers Women

SASTHAVU HALU UTHPADAKARA MAHILA vs. PRL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP/29583/2019HC Karnataka19 Sept 2019

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice P.B. Bajanthri

2. The gist of the matters are as under: Case No. Reason for condonation of delay WP No.28871/19 Balkuru Halu Utpadakara Sahakara Sangha Annexure “A” condonation of delay application. Delay is 134 days in filing Return. Newly Registered Society. First year of filing of Return. Unaware of provisions of the Income Tax Act. WP 28872/2019 Keradi Milk Producers Women

KERADI MILK PRODUCERS WOMEN S vs. PRL COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP/28872/2019HC Karnataka19 Sept 2019

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice P.B. Bajanthri

2. The gist of the matters are as under: Case No. Reason for condonation of delay WP No.28871/19 Balkuru Halu Utpadakara Sahakara Sangha Annexure “A” condonation of delay application. Delay is 134 days in filing Return. Newly Registered Society. First year of filing of Return. Unaware of provisions of the Income Tax Act. WP 28872/2019 Keradi Milk Producers Women

THOMBATHU MILK PRODUCERS vs. PRL COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP/28873/2019HC Karnataka19 Sept 2019

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice P.B. Bajanthri

2. The gist of the matters are as under: Case No. Reason for condonation of delay WP No.28871/19 Balkuru Halu Utpadakara Sahakara Sangha Annexure “A” condonation of delay application. Delay is 134 days in filing Return. Newly Registered Society. First year of filing of Return. Unaware of provisions of the Income Tax Act. WP 28872/2019 Keradi Milk Producers Women

BALKURU HALU UTHPADAKARA vs. PRL COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP/28871/2019HC Karnataka19 Sept 2019

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice P.B. Bajanthri

2. The gist of the matters are as under: Case No. Reason for condonation of delay WP No.28871/19 Balkuru Halu Utpadakara Sahakara Sangha Annexure “A” condonation of delay application. Delay is 134 days in filing Return. Newly Registered Society. First year of filing of Return. Unaware of provisions of the Income Tax Act. WP 28872/2019 Keradi Milk Producers Women

K M CREDIT SOUHARDA SAHAKARI LTD vs. PRL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP/29580/2019HC Karnataka19 Sept 2019

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice P.B. Bajanthri

2. The gist of the matters are as under: Case No. Reason for condonation of delay WP No.28871/19 Balkuru Halu Utpadakara Sahakara Sangha Annexure “A” condonation of delay application. Delay is 134 days in filing Return. Newly Registered Society. First year of filing of Return. Unaware of provisions of the Income Tax Act. WP 28872/2019 Keradi Milk Producers Women

BIDKALKATTE MILK PRODUCERS ' vs. PRL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP/29109/2019HC Karnataka19 Sept 2019

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice P.B. Bajanthri

2. The gist of the matters are as under: Case No. Reason for condonation of delay WP No.28871/19 Balkuru Halu Utpadakara Sahakara Sangha Annexure “A” condonation of delay application. Delay is 134 days in filing Return. Newly Registered Society. First year of filing of Return. Unaware of provisions of the Income Tax Act. WP 28872/2019 Keradi Milk Producers Women

PADUMUNDU MILK PRODUCERS WOMEN vs. PRL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP/29584/2019HC Karnataka19 Sept 2019

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice P.B. Bajanthri

2. The gist of the matters are as under: Case No. Reason for condonation of delay WP No.28871/19 Balkuru Halu Utpadakara Sahakara Sangha Annexure “A” condonation of delay application. Delay is 134 days in filing Return. Newly Registered Society. First year of filing of Return. Unaware of provisions of the Income Tax Act. WP 28872/2019 Keradi Milk Producers Women

SHREE GURU NITHYANANDA SOUHARDA vs. PRL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP/29582/2019HC Karnataka19 Sept 2019

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice P.B. Bajanthri

2. The gist of the matters are as under: Case No. Reason for condonation of delay WP No.28871/19 Balkuru Halu Utpadakara Sahakara Sangha Annexure “A” condonation of delay application. Delay is 134 days in filing Return. Newly Registered Society. First year of filing of Return. Unaware of provisions of the Income Tax Act. WP 28872/2019 Keradi Milk Producers Women

M/S. THE KOLAR & CHICKBALLAPUR vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER

The appeal stands disposed of as indicated above

ITA/280/2015HC Karnataka01 Sept 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 260Section 260A

14. However, we reserve liberty to the assessee to file an application under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act before the competent authority seeking for condonation of delay

M/S N.M.D.C vs. THE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING

WP/1393/2021HC Karnataka26 Feb 2021

Bench: R-1.

Section 9(1)Section 97

2) The order referred to in sub-section (1) shall be passed within a period % of ninety days from the date of filing of the appeal under section 100 or a reference under sub-section (5) of section 98. 13 (3) Where the members of the Appellate Authority differ on any point or points referred to in appeal or reference

ARECANUT PROCESSING AND SALE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, these petitions are allowed

WP/21140/2012HC Karnataka18 Apr 2013

Bench: Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ram Mohan Reddy

Section 119(2)(b)Section 139Section 44ASection 80P

condone the delay and therefore, its rejection is perverse. 13. It is the case of the petitioner that the sale of agricultural produce of its members is the only source of income, entitled to a deduction under Section 80P (2)(iii) of the Act, but it is for the 1st respondent to process the return filed by the petitioner

ECOLE SOLUTIONS PVT LTD vs. UNION OF INDIA

WP/14669/2014HC Karnataka12 Jun 2015

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 234E

14. Now turning my attention to the issue regarding the construction of the levy of fee contemplated under the impugned provision namely as to whether it is in disguise a `tax’ or a `fee simplicitor’ or it is `compensatory tax’, it requires to be noticed that tax is a compulsory extraction of money by the 103 Government

SRI CHANDRAKAR K KAMATH vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

WP/23541/2014HC Karnataka12 Jun 2015

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 234E

14. Now turning my attention to the issue regarding the construction of the levy of fee contemplated under the impugned provision namely as to whether it is in disguise a `tax’ or a `fee simplicitor’ or it is `compensatory tax’, it requires to be noticed that tax is a compulsory extraction of money by the 103 Government

M/S CATHODIC CONTROL CO LTD vs. UNION OF INDIA

WP/14294/2014HC Karnataka12 Jun 2015

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 234E

14. Now turning my attention to the issue regarding the construction of the levy of fee contemplated under the impugned provision namely as to whether it is in disguise a `tax’ or a `fee simplicitor’ or it is `compensatory tax’, it requires to be noticed that tax is a compulsory extraction of money by the 103 Government

M/S PRAKASH BUS CORPORATION PVT LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

WP/37689/2014HC Karnataka12 Jun 2015

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 234E

14. Now turning my attention to the issue regarding the construction of the levy of fee contemplated under the impugned provision namely as to whether it is in disguise a `tax’ or a `fee simplicitor’ or it is `compensatory tax’, it requires to be noticed that tax is a compulsory extraction of money by the 103 Government