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.

221 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 2(15)clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai1,800Mumbai1,632Delhi1,595Kolkata951Bangalore766Pune713Hyderabad574Ahmedabad529Jaipur485Nagpur311Surat287Chandigarh265Patna226Karnataka221Raipur217Visakhapatnam206Indore181Amritsar149Lucknow141Cochin136Cuttack131Rajkot129Panaji83Calcutta55SC47Jodhpur40Guwahati39Dehradun32Agra31Telangana31Jabalpur22Allahabad21Varanasi20Ranchi11Kerala7Orissa6Rajasthan6Himachal Pradesh4Andhra Pradesh2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2R.M. LODHA ANIL R. DAVE1DIPAK MISRA R.K. AGRAWAL PRAFULLA C. PANT1Gauhati1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 234E84Section 26056Section 260A34TDS25Section 12A16Revision u/s 26313Addition to Income12Deduction11Exemption

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 221 · Page 1 of 12

...
9
Section 368
Section 115J8
Section 106
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) of the Act or not and therefore, no straight jacket formula or guidelines can be laid down in this regard. However, such orders passed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes being a quasi-judicial order is always open to judicial review by the higher constitutional courts. If the good conscience of the Courts is pricked

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)

condonation of delay to file a revised return by an application under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act. If an order had been passed as regards the rectification application, the assessee may have got relief at that end itself. As no order was passed, the assessee then decided to explore the possibility of filing a revised return. 15

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)

15. Nextly, he relies on the Apex Court’s judgment in the case of EX-CAPT. K.C. ARORA AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS reported in (1984) 3 SCC 281, wherein it is held that the legislature cannot legislate today with reference to a situation that prevailed 20 years ago and ignore the march of events

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CENTRAL POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE vs. UNION OF INDIA

WP/15476/2014HC Karnataka12 Jun 2015

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 234E

2) of the Constitution ordinarily there are two classes of cases where Government imposes fees upon persons. The first is of grant of permission or privilege and the second for services rendered. In the first class of cases, the cost incurred by the Government for granting of permission or privilege may be very small and the amount of imposition levied

M/S NEW MEDIA COMPANY vs. UNION OF INDIA

WP/18788/2014HC Karnataka12 Jun 2015

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 234E

2) of the Constitution ordinarily there are two classes of cases where Government imposes fees upon persons. The first is of grant of permission or privilege and the second for services rendered. In the first class of cases, the cost incurred by the Government for granting of permission or privilege may be very small and the amount of imposition levied

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

2) of the Constitution ordinarily there are two classes of cases where Government imposes fees upon persons. The first is of grant of permission or privilege and the second for services rendered. In the first class of cases, the cost incurred by the Government for granting of permission or privilege may be very small and the amount of imposition levied

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

2) of the Constitution ordinarily there are two classes of cases where Government imposes fees upon persons. The first is of grant of permission or privilege and the second for services rendered. In the first class of cases, the cost incurred by the Government for granting of permission or privilege may be very small and the amount of imposition levied

MINTENT SERVICED APARTMENTS PVT LTD., vs. UNION OF INDIA

WP/25841/2014HC Karnataka12 Jun 2015

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 234E

2) of the Constitution ordinarily there are two classes of cases where Government imposes fees upon persons. The first is of grant of permission or privilege and the second for services rendered. In the first class of cases, the cost incurred by the Government for granting of permission or privilege may be very small and the amount of imposition levied

M/S. LAKSHMINIRMAN BANGALORE PVT.LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

WP/26589/2014HC Karnataka12 Jun 2015

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 234E

2) of the Constitution ordinarily there are two classes of cases where Government imposes fees upon persons. The first is of grant of permission or privilege and the second for services rendered. In the first class of cases, the cost incurred by the Government for granting of permission or privilege may be very small and the amount of imposition levied