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.

148 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 78clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai428Chennai416Kolkata354Delhi338Bangalore171Karnataka148Ahmedabad138Pune130Hyderabad103Chandigarh102Jaipur92Amritsar45Lucknow45Visakhapatnam42Surat39Calcutta36Indore30Guwahati24Raipur23Cuttack20Patna19Panaji18Nagpur18Rajkot13SC10Cochin7Jodhpur6Allahabad6Telangana6Dehradun5Jabalpur3Ranchi2Orissa2Rajasthan2Andhra Pradesh1Agra1Varanasi1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1

Key Topics

Section 234E84Section 26030TDS22Section 106Addition to Income5Section 9(2)3Section 672Section 782Section 142Section 10A

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

78 days in filing Return. Situated in a small village. Turn over is less than one crore. Not aware of the new provision. 13 WP No.29584/19 Padumundu Milk Producers Women Co- Operative Society Annexure “A” condonation of delay application. Delay is 143 days in filing Return. No knowledge that if the return is not filed within date not eligible

NAVANIDHI VIVIDHODDESHA vs. PRL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP/29110/2019HC Karnataka19 Sept 2019

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

78 days in filing Return. Situated in a small village. Turn over is less than one crore. Not aware of the new provision. 13 WP No.29584/19 Padumundu Milk Producers Women Co- Operative Society Annexure “A” condonation of delay application. Delay is 143 days in filing Return. No knowledge that if the return is not filed within date not eligible

Showing 1–20 of 148 · Page 1 of 8

...
2
Penalty2
Exemption2

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

WP/29109/2019HC Karnataka19 Sept 2019

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

78 days in filing Return. Situated in a small village. Turn over is less than one crore. Not aware of the new provision. 13 WP No.29584/19 Padumundu Milk Producers Women Co- Operative Society Annexure “A” condonation of delay application. Delay is 143 days in filing Return. No knowledge that if the return is not filed within date not eligible

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

78 days in filing Return. Situated in a small village. Turn over is less than one crore. Not aware of the new provision. 13 WP No.29584/19 Padumundu Milk Producers Women Co- Operative Society Annexure “A” condonation of delay application. Delay is 143 days in filing Return. No knowledge that if the return is not filed within date not eligible

BALKURU HALU UTHPADAKARA vs. PRL COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP/28871/2019HC Karnataka19 Sept 2019

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

78 days in filing Return. Situated in a small village. Turn over is less than one crore. Not aware of the new provision. 13 WP No.29584/19 Padumundu Milk Producers Women Co- Operative Society Annexure “A” condonation of delay application. Delay is 143 days in filing Return. No knowledge that if the return is not filed within date not eligible

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

78 days in filing Return. Situated in a small village. Turn over is less than one crore. Not aware of the new provision. 13 WP No.29584/19 Padumundu Milk Producers Women Co- Operative Society Annexure “A” condonation of delay application. Delay is 143 days in filing Return. No knowledge that if the return is not filed within date not eligible

THOMBATHU MILK PRODUCERS vs. PRL COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP/28873/2019HC Karnataka19 Sept 2019

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

78 days in filing Return. Situated in a small village. Turn over is less than one crore. Not aware of the new provision. 13 WP No.29584/19 Padumundu Milk Producers Women Co- Operative Society Annexure “A” condonation of delay application. Delay is 143 days in filing Return. No knowledge that if the return is not filed within date not eligible

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

78 days in filing Return. Situated in a small village. Turn over is less than one crore. Not aware of the new provision. 13 WP No.29584/19 Padumundu Milk Producers Women Co- Operative Society Annexure “A” condonation of delay application. Delay is 143 days in filing Return. No knowledge that if the return is not filed within date not eligible

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

78 days in filing Return. Situated in a small village. Turn over is less than one crore. Not aware of the new provision. 13 WP No.29584/19 Padumundu Milk Producers Women Co- Operative Society Annexure “A” condonation of delay application. Delay is 143 days in filing Return. No knowledge that if the return is not filed within date not eligible

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)

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 has filed the present writ petition and has challenged the validity of the order passed. It is further contended that the letter dated 18.03.2008 which was filed

SRI. M SEETHAPATHY RAO vs. UNION OF INDIA

WP/24241/2018HC Karnataka13 Jun 2018

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

Section 73Section 78Section 85

78 and Rs.10,000/- each under Sections 68 and 69 of the Finance Act. 10. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the 3rd respondent, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent. It is the specific case of the petitioner before the 2nd respondent appellate authority that he is aged about 76 years and could not file

M/S ASHOK KUMAR BACHAWAR (HUF) vs. UNION OF INDIA

WP/106714/2016HC Karnataka23 Sept 2016

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice P.S.Dinesh Kumar Writ Petition No. 106714/2016 (T-Tar) & Writ Petition No.106796/2016 Between : M/S. Ashok Kumar Bachawat (Huf) Plot No.4, Adarsha Colony, Radio Park, Bellary-583101, Karnataka (Represented By Mr.Ashok Kumar Bachawat S/O Shir. Bhikarechand Bachawat Karta Of Huf Aged About 58 Years). ... Petitioner (By Sri B. G. Chidananda Urs, Advocate) & : 1. Union Of India Ministry Of Finance Represented By Its Secretary, North Block, New Delhi-110001 2. The Commissioner Of Central Excise No.71, Club Road, Belgaum-590001 3. The Joint Commissioner Of Service Tax Office Of The Commissioner Of Central Excise No.71, Club Road, Belgaum-590001. ... Respondents These Writ Petitions Are Filed Under Articles 226 & 227 Of The Constitution Of India, Praying To Quash The Impugned Order Dated 29.02.2016/04.03.2016 Is Enclosed As Annexure-D, Passed By Respondent No.3.

Section 67Section 73(2)Section 75Section 77(2)Section 78

Section 78 of the Act, would be reduced to 25% of the service tax, provided the entire amount of service tax and the interest thereon and the reduced penalty are paid within 30 days from the date of receipt of the said order. The said Order-in-Original is challenged in this writ petition. 4. Sri B.G. Chidanand Urs, learned

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

78 (18) AIR 1981 SC 1863 – Southern Pharmaceuticals and Chemicals, Trichur and others Vs State of Kerala and others (19) W.P.6918-6938/2014 (20) (1980) 1 SCC 416 – Kewal Krishan Puri and anr Vs State of Punjab and another 4. Per contra, the learned panel counsel Sriyuths K.V.Aravind and Jeevan J. Neeralagi would support the impugned provision and contend that

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

78 (18) AIR 1981 SC 1863 – Southern Pharmaceuticals and Chemicals, Trichur and others Vs State of Kerala and others (19) W.P.6918-6938/2014 (20) (1980) 1 SCC 416 – Kewal Krishan Puri and anr Vs State of Punjab and another 4. Per contra, the learned panel counsel Sriyuths K.V.Aravind and Jeevan J. Neeralagi would support the impugned provision and contend that

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

78 (18) AIR 1981 SC 1863 – Southern Pharmaceuticals and Chemicals, Trichur and others Vs State of Kerala and others (19) W.P.6918-6938/2014 (20) (1980) 1 SCC 416 – Kewal Krishan Puri and anr Vs State of Punjab and another 4. Per contra, the learned panel counsel Sriyuths K.V.Aravind and Jeevan J. Neeralagi would support the impugned provision and contend that

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

78 (18) AIR 1981 SC 1863 – Southern Pharmaceuticals and Chemicals, Trichur and others Vs State of Kerala and others (19) W.P.6918-6938/2014 (20) (1980) 1 SCC 416 – Kewal Krishan Puri and anr Vs State of Punjab and another 4. Per contra, the learned panel counsel Sriyuths K.V.Aravind and Jeevan J. Neeralagi would support the impugned provision and contend that

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

78 (18) AIR 1981 SC 1863 – Southern Pharmaceuticals and Chemicals, Trichur and others Vs State of Kerala and others (19) W.P.6918-6938/2014 (20) (1980) 1 SCC 416 – Kewal Krishan Puri and anr Vs State of Punjab and another 4. Per contra, the learned panel counsel Sriyuths K.V.Aravind and Jeevan J. Neeralagi would support the impugned provision and contend that

SRI. FATHERAJ SINGHVI vs. UNION OF INDIA

WP/41614/2014HC Karnataka12 Jun 2015

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 234E

78 (18) AIR 1981 SC 1863 – Southern Pharmaceuticals and Chemicals, Trichur and others Vs State of Kerala and others (19) W.P.6918-6938/2014 (20) (1980) 1 SCC 416 – Kewal Krishan Puri and anr Vs State of Punjab and another 4. Per contra, the learned panel counsel Sriyuths K.V.Aravind and Jeevan J. Neeralagi would support the impugned provision and contend that

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

78 (18) AIR 1981 SC 1863 – Southern Pharmaceuticals and Chemicals, Trichur and others Vs State of Kerala and others (19) W.P.6918-6938/2014 (20) (1980) 1 SCC 416 – Kewal Krishan Puri and anr Vs State of Punjab and another 4. Per contra, the learned panel counsel Sriyuths K.V.Aravind and Jeevan J. Neeralagi would support the impugned provision and contend that

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

78 (18) AIR 1981 SC 1863 – Southern Pharmaceuticals and Chemicals, Trichur and others Vs State of Kerala and others (19) W.P.6918-6938/2014 (20) (1980) 1 SCC 416 – Kewal Krishan Puri and anr Vs State of Punjab and another 4. Per contra, the learned panel counsel Sriyuths K.V.Aravind and Jeevan J. Neeralagi would support the impugned provision and contend that