Search: condonation of delay | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

114 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 263clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai425 Kolkata333 Delhi284 Mumbai268 Pune199 Bangalore164 Hyderabad135 Karnataka114 Jaipur95 Chandigarh76 Indore66 Calcutta65 Ahmedabad65 Cuttack54 Rajkot50 Panaji41 Surat37 Visakhapatnam36 Raipur34 Cochin28 Nagpur27 Patna21 Amritsar21 Lucknow19 Dehradun9 SC8 Varanasi7 Agra6 Jabalpur6 Jodhpur5 Telangana4 Guwahati3 Allahabad2 Rajasthan2 Himachal Pradesh2 Punjab & Haryana2 Andhra Pradesh1 Ranchi1

Key Topics

Section 26042 Section 2639 Section 260A5 Section 92C2 Section 92B2 Section 1482 Revision u/s 2632

M/S HUBLI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CO. vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

In the result, the appeals are disposed of as

ITA/100025/2017HC Karnataka09 Feb 2018

Bench: JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA,S.SUJATHA

Section 260ASection 263Section 80

Section 263 of the Act. Appeal filed by the assessee belatedly with a delay of 913 days was not condoned

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CYBER PARK DEVELOPMENT

In the result, the appeal fails

ITA/137/2014HC Karnataka05 Oct 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Showing 1–20 of 114 · Page 1 of 6

Section 260

Section 260A

Section 263

condoning the delay of 360 days when it itself as held that the reasoning given by the assessee that it was not aware that an appeal ought to have been filed before the Tribunal delay notice was issued by the Commissioner of income tax for the 3 assessment year 2009-10 was not acceptable as the notice under section 263

THE COMMISSONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI PRAKASH B NICHANI

ITA/399/2009HC Karnataka18 Aug 2015

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 260ASection 263

Section 263 of the Act was issued, the appellant filed an appeal on 27.3.2007 (which was prior to the order of Revisional Commissioner) challenging the assessment order dated 31.3.2006 passed by the Assessing Officer. Along with the appeal, an application for condonation of 331 days delay

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

263 of the Act once the proceedings under Section 153A was initiated. The High Court in Canara Housing (supra) answered the question in the negative. It referred to the decision of this Court in CIT v. Anil Kumar Bhatia (supra) and came to the conclusion that once proceedings are initiated under Section 153A of the Act the legal effect

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

263 of the Act once the proceedings under Section 153A was initiated. The High Court in Canara Housing (supra) answered the question in the negative. It referred to the decision of this Court in CIT v. Anil Kumar Bhatia (supra) and came to the conclusion that once proceedings are initiated under Section 153A of the Act the legal effect

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

263 of the Act once the proceedings under Section 153A was initiated. The High Court in Canara Housing (supra) answered the question in the negative. It referred to the decision of this Court in CIT v. Anil Kumar Bhatia (supra) and came to the conclusion that once proceedings are initiated under Section 153A of the Act the legal effect

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

263 of the Act once the proceedings under Section 153A was initiated. The High Court in Canara Housing (supra) answered the question in the negative. It referred to the decision of this Court in CIT v. Anil Kumar Bhatia (supra) and came to the conclusion that once proceedings are initiated under Section 153A of the Act the legal effect

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

263 of the Act once the proceedings under Section 153A was initiated. The High Court in Canara Housing (supra) answered the question in the negative. It referred to the decision of this Court in CIT v. Anil Kumar Bhatia (supra) and came to the conclusion that once proceedings are initiated under Section 153A of the Act the legal effect

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

263 of the Act once the proceedings under Section 153A was initiated. The High Court in Canara Housing (supra) answered the question in the negative. It referred to the decision of this Court in CIT v. Anil Kumar Bhatia (supra) and came to the conclusion that once proceedings are initiated under Section 153A of the Act the legal effect

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

263 of the Act once the proceedings under Section 153A was initiated. The High Court in Canara Housing (supra) answered the question in the negative. It referred to the decision of this Court in CIT v. Anil Kumar Bhatia (supra) and came to the conclusion that once proceedings are initiated under Section 153A of the Act the legal effect

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

263 of the Act once the proceedings under Section 153A was initiated. The High Court in Canara Housing (supra) answered the question in the negative. It referred to the decision of this Court in CIT v. Anil Kumar Bhatia (supra) and came to the conclusion that once proceedings are initiated under Section 153A of the Act the legal effect

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

263 of the Act once the proceedings under Section 153A was initiated. The High Court in Canara Housing (supra) answered the question in the negative. It referred to the decision of this Court in CIT v. Anil Kumar Bhatia (supra) and came to the conclusion that once proceedings are initiated under Section 153A of the Act the legal effect

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

263 of the Act once the proceedings under Section 153A was initiated. The High Court in Canara Housing (supra) answered the question in the negative. It referred to the decision of this Court in CIT v. Anil Kumar Bhatia (supra) and came to the conclusion that once proceedings are initiated under Section 153A of the Act the legal effect

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5 vs. M/S ORIGAMI CELLULO PVT LTD

ITA/726/2023HC Karnataka18 Nov 2025

Bench: B M SHYAM PRASAD,T.M.NADAF

Section 260Section 263Section 92BSection 92C

263 of the Act by relying on decision of Kolkota Tribunal Bench in case of DVC Emta Coal Mines Ltd v/s ACIT (ITA No.2430-2432/KOL/2017 dated 1/5/2019) ignoring that as per Instruction No.3/2016 dated 10/3/2016, if the reason or one of the reasons for selection of a case for scrutiny is a Transfer Pricing risk parameter, the case

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

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

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

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

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