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.

124 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 83clear

Sorted by relevance

Patna490Mumbai410Chennai405Delhi391Kolkata287Bangalore170Hyderabad163Ahmedabad129Karnataka124Pune119Chandigarh114Jaipur108Nagpur100Indore68Surat63Rajkot53Calcutta41Lucknow39Cuttack38Cochin36Panaji36Amritsar26Raipur19Agra13Guwahati12SC11Visakhapatnam11Varanasi6Telangana5Jabalpur5Jodhpur3Ranchi3Andhra Pradesh2Orissa2Allahabad2Rajasthan1Punjab & Haryana1Himachal Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 234E84TDS21Section 2634Section 832

ERAPPA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

WP/9257/2014HC Karnataka16 Nov 2022

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr Justice M.G.S. Kamal Writ Petition No. 9257 Of 2014 (Sc/St) Between:

83-84 dated 28.10.88, which is produced at Annexure-B to the writ petition." 2. It is the case of the petitioner that his father BheemaBhovi was the grantee of land bearing Sy.No.6 measuring 3 acres situated at Nerlekere Taluk, Tarikere, Chikkamagaluru, who was granted the land under Darkasth free of cost on 22.08.1955. That the said original grantee

SMT. P.UMA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

WP/7294/2020HC Karnataka09 Jul 2021

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice B. M. Shyam Prasad Writ Petition No.7294/2020 (Lr) Between : Smt. P.Uma W/O Siddappa Aged About 58 Years, Working As Tailor No.938, 7Th Cross J T Road, Raghavendra Blcok Srinagar, Bengaluru - 560 050. ... Petitioner (By Sri. M. Keshavareddhy., Advocate) & : 1. The Assistant Commissioner Ramanagara Sub Division Ramangara District - 562 159. 2. The Tahashildar Ramangara Tq Ramanagara District - 562 159. 3. R. Ronald Sebastian S/O Y K Rajanna Aged About 55 Years, R/O No.D-10 Ground Floor

Section 25

Showing 1–20 of 124 · Page 1 of 7

Section 5
Section 79
Section 79A
Section 83

condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. 3. The petitioner’s case is that she hails from an agricultural family and she has purchased the subject land in the year 2008 with the assistance of her family members. She is a housewife but was engaged in tailoring business for a couple of years during the years

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

Section 260Section 260ASection 263

condoning the delay in cases relied upon by the tribunal or different and distinguishable from that of the present case? 4 (iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the assessee’s case, the Tribunal was justified, in crashing the order dated 16.11.2011 passed under section 263 of the Act, without appreciating that the CIT had merely directed

M/S HOTEL FISHLAND vs. UNION OF INDIA

WP/12097/2014HC Karnataka12 Jun 2015

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 234E

83 is of the considered view that only issue which requires to be examined is: “Whether Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 inserted by Finance Act, 2012 is to be struck down or its validity is to be upheld? PREFACE: 9. The Courts normally lean against a construction which reduces the statute to a futility. The maxim

SRI. FATHERAJ SINGHVI vs. UNION OF INDIA

WP/41614/2014HC Karnataka12 Jun 2015

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 234E

83 is of the considered view that only issue which requires to be examined is: “Whether Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 inserted by Finance Act, 2012 is to be struck down or its validity is to be upheld? PREFACE: 9. The Courts normally lean against a construction which reduces the statute to a futility. The maxim

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

83 is of the considered view that only issue which requires to be examined is: “Whether Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 inserted by Finance Act, 2012 is to be struck down or its validity is to be upheld? PREFACE: 9. The Courts normally lean against a construction which reduces the statute to a futility. The maxim

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

83 is of the considered view that only issue which requires to be examined is: “Whether Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 inserted by Finance Act, 2012 is to be struck down or its validity is to be upheld? PREFACE: 9. The Courts normally lean against a construction which reduces the statute to a futility. The maxim

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

83 is of the considered view that only issue which requires to be examined is: “Whether Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 inserted by Finance Act, 2012 is to be struck down or its validity is to be upheld? PREFACE: 9. The Courts normally lean against a construction which reduces the statute to a futility. The maxim

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

83 is of the considered view that only issue which requires to be examined is: “Whether Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 inserted by Finance Act, 2012 is to be struck down or its validity is to be upheld? PREFACE: 9. The Courts normally lean against a construction which reduces the statute to a futility. The maxim

ECOLE SOLUTIONS PVT LTD vs. UNION OF INDIA

WP/14669/2014HC Karnataka12 Jun 2015

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 234E

83 is of the considered view that only issue which requires to be examined is: “Whether Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 inserted by Finance Act, 2012 is to be struck down or its validity is to be upheld? PREFACE: 9. The Courts normally lean against a construction which reduces the statute to a futility. The maxim

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

83 is of the considered view that only issue which requires to be examined is: “Whether Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 inserted by Finance Act, 2012 is to be struck down or its validity is to be upheld? PREFACE: 9. The Courts normally lean against a construction which reduces the statute to a futility. The maxim

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

83 is of the considered view that only issue which requires to be examined is: “Whether Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 inserted by Finance Act, 2012 is to be struck down or its validity is to be upheld? PREFACE: 9. The Courts normally lean against a construction which reduces the statute to a futility. The maxim

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

83 is of the considered view that only issue which requires to be examined is: “Whether Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 inserted by Finance Act, 2012 is to be struck down or its validity is to be upheld? PREFACE: 9. The Courts normally lean against a construction which reduces the statute to a futility. The maxim

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

83 is of the considered view that only issue which requires to be examined is: “Whether Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 inserted by Finance Act, 2012 is to be struck down or its validity is to be upheld? PREFACE: 9. The Courts normally lean against a construction which reduces the statute to a futility. The maxim

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

83 is of the considered view that only issue which requires to be examined is: “Whether Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 inserted by Finance Act, 2012 is to be struck down or its validity is to be upheld? PREFACE: 9. The Courts normally lean against a construction which reduces the statute to a futility. The maxim

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

83 is of the considered view that only issue which requires to be examined is: “Whether Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 inserted by Finance Act, 2012 is to be struck down or its validity is to be upheld? PREFACE: 9. The Courts normally lean against a construction which reduces the statute to a futility. The maxim

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

83 is of the considered view that only issue which requires to be examined is: “Whether Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 inserted by Finance Act, 2012 is to be struck down or its validity is to be upheld? PREFACE: 9. The Courts normally lean against a construction which reduces the statute to a futility. The maxim

DR V. NARAYANASWAMY vs. UNION OF INDIA

WP/10243/2014HC Karnataka12 Jun 2015

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 234E

83 is of the considered view that only issue which requires to be examined is: “Whether Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 inserted by Finance Act, 2012 is to be struck down or its validity is to be upheld? PREFACE: 9. The Courts normally lean against a construction which reduces the statute to a futility. The maxim

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

83 is of the considered view that only issue which requires to be examined is: “Whether Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 inserted by Finance Act, 2012 is to be struck down or its validity is to be upheld? PREFACE: 9. The Courts normally lean against a construction which reduces the statute to a futility. The maxim

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

83 is of the considered view that only issue which requires to be examined is: “Whether Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 inserted by Finance Act, 2012 is to be struck down or its validity is to be upheld? PREFACE: 9. The Courts normally lean against a construction which reduces the statute to a futility. The maxim