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.

15 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 80P(2)(b)clear

Sorted by relevance

Pune181Chennai116Mumbai104Bangalore86Panaji64Cochin45Hyderabad37Raipur28Kolkata28Jaipur22Ahmedabad21Chandigarh18Delhi17Lucknow16Karnataka15Rajkot13Nagpur13Visakhapatnam7Indore6Calcutta2Amritsar1Guwahati1SC1

Key Topics

Section 119(2)(b)17Section 80P7Deduction6Condonation of Delay6Section 45Section 1393

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

80P (2)(iii), of its entire income from out of the sale of the agricultural produce, filed the return under Section 139 of the Act on 23.11.2004 along with an application to condone the delay by invoking Section 119(2)(b

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

B’ group, this day, the Court made the following: COMMON ORDER In the instant petitions, petitioners are seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari by quashing the respective impugned orders and a writ in the nature of mandamus 11 by directing respondent No.3 for fresh assessment of their income tax return filed for the Assessment year

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

B’ group, this day, the Court made the following: COMMON ORDER In the instant petitions, petitioners are seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari by quashing the respective impugned orders and a writ in the nature of mandamus 11 by directing respondent No.3 for fresh assessment of their income tax return filed for the Assessment year

NAVANIDHI VIVIDHODDESHA vs. PRL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP/29110/2019HC Karnataka19 Sept 2019

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

B’ group, this day, the Court made the following: COMMON ORDER In the instant petitions, petitioners are seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari by quashing the respective impugned orders and a writ in the nature of mandamus 11 by directing respondent No.3 for fresh assessment of their income tax return filed for the Assessment year

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

B’ group, this day, the Court made the following: COMMON ORDER In the instant petitions, petitioners are seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari by quashing the respective impugned orders and a writ in the nature of mandamus 11 by directing respondent No.3 for fresh assessment of their income tax return filed for the Assessment year

BALKURU HALU UTHPADAKARA vs. PRL COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP/28871/2019HC Karnataka19 Sept 2019

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

B’ group, this day, the Court made the following: COMMON ORDER In the instant petitions, petitioners are seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari by quashing the respective impugned orders and a writ in the nature of mandamus 11 by directing respondent No.3 for fresh assessment of their income tax return filed for the Assessment year

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

B’ group, this day, the Court made the following: COMMON ORDER In the instant petitions, petitioners are seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari by quashing the respective impugned orders and a writ in the nature of mandamus 11 by directing respondent No.3 for fresh assessment of their income tax return filed for the Assessment year

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

B’ group, this day, the Court made the following: COMMON ORDER In the instant petitions, petitioners are seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari by quashing the respective impugned orders and a writ in the nature of mandamus 11 by directing respondent No.3 for fresh assessment of their income tax return filed for the Assessment year

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

WP/29109/2019HC Karnataka19 Sept 2019

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

B’ group, this day, the Court made the following: COMMON ORDER In the instant petitions, petitioners are seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari by quashing the respective impugned orders and a writ in the nature of mandamus 11 by directing respondent No.3 for fresh assessment of their income tax return filed for the Assessment year

THOMBATHU MILK PRODUCERS vs. PRL COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP/28873/2019HC Karnataka19 Sept 2019

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

B’ group, this day, the Court made the following: COMMON ORDER In the instant petitions, petitioners are seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari by quashing the respective impugned orders and a writ in the nature of mandamus 11 by directing respondent No.3 for fresh assessment of their income tax return filed for the Assessment year

PRL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. BALKURU HALU UTHPAADAKARA

WA/4011/2019HC Karnataka04 Jan 2021

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,M G UMA

Section 119(2)(b)Section 4Section 80P

80P of the Act. Appellant No.1 herein has rightly rejected the application filed under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act, but the learned single Judge has set aside the said order and has remanded the matter to respondent No.3 for re-examination of the said application pertaining to condonation of delay

PRL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. SASTHAVU HALU UTHPADAKARA MAHILA

WA/4015/2019HC Karnataka04 Jan 2021

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,M G UMA

Section 119(2)(b)Section 4Section 80P

80P of the Act. Appellant No.1 herein has rightly rejected the application filed under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act, but the learned single Judge has set aside the said order and has remanded the matter to respondent No.3 for re-examination of the said application pertaining to condonation of delay

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

WA/4016/2019HC Karnataka04 Jan 2021

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,M G UMA

Section 119(2)(b)Section 4Section 80P

80P of the Act. Appellant No.1 herein has rightly rejected the application filed under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act, but the learned single Judge has set aside the said order and has remanded the matter to respondent No.3 for re-examination of the said application pertaining to condonation of delay

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S.NAVANIDHI VIVIDHODDESHA

WA/4020/2019HC Karnataka04 Jan 2021

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,M G UMA

Section 119(2)(b)Section 4Section 80P

80P of the Act. Appellant No.1 herein has rightly rejected the application filed under - 4 - Section 119(2)(b) of the Act, but the learned single Judge has set aside the said order and has remanded the matter to respondent No.3 for re-examination of the said application pertaining to condonation of delay

PRL.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S KERADI MILK PRODUCERS' WOMEN

WA/4019/2019HC Karnataka04 Jan 2021

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,M G UMA

Section 119(2)(b)Section 4Section 80P

80P of the Act. Appellant No.1 herein has rightly rejected the application filed under - 4 - Section 119(2)(b) of the Act, but the learned single Judge has set aside the said order and has remanded the matter to respondent No.3 for re-examination of the said application pertaining to condonation of delay