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.

130 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 201(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai373Delhi304Mumbai295Bangalore234Pune147Ahmedabad133Nagpur132Karnataka130Jaipur123Kolkata121Cochin98Hyderabad58Raipur58Visakhapatnam56Chandigarh39Surat34Cuttack32Panaji30Indore29Jodhpur17Lucknow13Rajkot12Varanasi12Dehradun9Agra8Patna7SC6Amritsar5Calcutta4Ranchi4Guwahati3Jabalpur3Andhra Pradesh2Kerala2Telangana1DIPAK MISRA R.K. AGRAWAL PRAFULLA C. PANT1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 234E84TDS24Section 26012Section 94Double Taxation/DTAA4Section 194J3Section 1393Section 10(5)2Section 143(3)

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)

201. …Respondents (By: Sri H.Jayakar Shetty, C.G.S.C. for R1 & R2; Sri T.L.Kiran Kumar, A.G.A., for R3; Sri B.S.Basavaraju, Advocate for R4) This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to declare Section 2(1) of the Payment of Gratuity (Amendment) Act, 2009, as unconstitutional in so far as it relates to giving

ADITHYA BIZORP SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT LTD vs. UNION OF INDIA

WP/6918/2014HC Karnataka12 Jun 2015

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 234E

201 and as such no hardship would be caused to the assessees. As such contention raised in this regard cannot be accepted. 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

Showing 1–20 of 130 · Page 1 of 7

2
Section 194C2

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

201 and as such no hardship would be caused to the assessees. As such contention raised in this regard cannot be accepted. 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

M/S TEE ENN ENTERPRISES vs. UNION OF INDIA

WP/19762/2014HC Karnataka12 Jun 2015

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 234E

201 and as such no hardship would be caused to the assessees. As such contention raised in this regard cannot be accepted. 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

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

201 and as such no hardship would be caused to the assessees. As such contention raised in this regard cannot be accepted. 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

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

201 and as such no hardship would be caused to the assessees. As such contention raised in this regard cannot be accepted. 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

M/S HOTEL FISHLAND vs. UNION OF INDIA

WP/12097/2014HC Karnataka12 Jun 2015

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 234E

201 and as such no hardship would be caused to the assessees. As such contention raised in this regard cannot be accepted. 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

DR V. NARAYANASWAMY vs. UNION OF INDIA

WP/10243/2014HC Karnataka12 Jun 2015

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 234E

201 and as such no hardship would be caused to the assessees. As such contention raised in this regard cannot be accepted. 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

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

201 and as such no hardship would be caused to the assessees. As such contention raised in this regard cannot be accepted. 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

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

201 and as such no hardship would be caused to the assessees. As such contention raised in this regard cannot be accepted. 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

M/S PROCESS PUMPS (I) PVT LTD vs. UNION OF INDIA

WP/14296/2014HC Karnataka12 Jun 2015

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 234E

201 and as such no hardship would be caused to the assessees. As such contention raised in this regard cannot be accepted. 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

M/S TEACHERS CO OPERATIVE BANK vs. UNION OF INDIA

WP/16939/2014HC Karnataka12 Jun 2015

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 234E

201 and as such no hardship would be caused to the assessees. As such contention raised in this regard cannot be accepted. 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

ECOLE SOLUTIONS PVT LTD vs. UNION OF INDIA

WP/14669/2014HC Karnataka12 Jun 2015

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 234E

201 and as such no hardship would be caused to the assessees. As such contention raised in this regard cannot be accepted. 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

SRI. FATHERAJ SINGHVI vs. UNION OF INDIA

WP/41614/2014HC Karnataka12 Jun 2015

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 234E

201 and as such no hardship would be caused to the assessees. As such contention raised in this regard cannot be accepted. 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

M/S MAHRISHI MELTCHEMS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. UNION OF INDIA

WP/53286/2014HC Karnataka12 Jun 2015

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 234E

201 and as such no hardship would be caused to the assessees. As such contention raised in this regard cannot be accepted. 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

M/S NEW MEDIA COMPANY vs. UNION OF INDIA

WP/13065/2014HC Karnataka12 Jun 2015

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 234E

201 and as such no hardship would be caused to the assessees. As such contention raised in this regard cannot be accepted. 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

SREE C B EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL TRUST vs. UNION OF INDIA

WP/38127/2014HC Karnataka12 Jun 2015

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 234E

201 and as such no hardship would be caused to the assessees. As such contention raised in this regard cannot be accepted. 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

M/S. K K BROTHERS vs. UNION OF INDIA

WP/3725/2014HC Karnataka12 Jun 2015

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 234E

201 and as such no hardship would be caused to the assessees. As such contention raised in this regard cannot be accepted. 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

M/S PRODIGY TECHNOVATIONS PVT LTD vs. UNION OF INDIA

WP/11889/2014HC Karnataka12 Jun 2015

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 234E

201 and as such no hardship would be caused to the assessees. As such contention raised in this regard cannot be accepted. 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

CENTRAL POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE vs. UNION OF INDIA

WP/15476/2014HC Karnataka12 Jun 2015

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 234E

201 and as such no hardship would be caused to the assessees. As such contention raised in this regard cannot be accepted. 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