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.

4 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 10(46)clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai490Mumbai440Delhi415Kolkata246Bangalore197Ahmedabad153Karnataka142Jaipur142Hyderabad121Chandigarh108Pune75Amritsar74Visakhapatnam72Nagpur66Raipur60Surat51Indore50Cuttack39Lucknow39Calcutta36Rajkot34Panaji34Cochin25SC24Patna19Varanasi15Dehradun11Telangana11Guwahati9Allahabad8Orissa4Jodhpur3Jabalpur3Agra3Ranchi3Rajasthan1Andhra Pradesh1

PRINCIPAL COMNR. OF INCOME TAX, SAMBALPUR RANGE vs. M/S. TATA SPONGE IRON LTD.

ITA/96/2022HC Orissa17 Aug 2023

Bench: MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA

Section 18 and explained its significance in the following words: ―22. The significance of Section 18 of the Act can be understood in the light of the above provisions. Section 18 provides for provisional assessment of duty in cases specified in sub-section (1) of the section. Clause (c) of sub-section (1) deals with cases where the importer

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1,BHUBANESWAR vs. KUNTALA MOHAPATRA

ITA/10/2024HC Orissa15 Apr 2024

Bench: DR. JUSTICE B.R.SARANGI,MR. JUSTICE GOURISHANKAR SATAPATHY

Section 132(4)Section 68

46:48 ITA 1/2024 & connected matters Page 2 of 10 are allowed. Delay of 5 days in filing the appeals is condoned. Applications stand disposed of. ITA 1/2024, ITA 10/2024 and ITA 12/2024 1. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax1 impugns the validity of the order dated 16 May 2023 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2 and posits

PRINCIPAL COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, SAMBALPUR vs. BINAY KUMAR JINDAL, HUF

Accordingly, this appeal fails and is dismissed

ITA/7/2023HC Orissa02 Mar 2023

Bench: DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR (CJ),MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

Section 174Section 189

10. In Home Office v. Dorset Yacht Co. (1970 (2) All ER 294) Lord Reid said, "Lord Atkin's speech.....is not to be treated as if it was a statute definition it will require qualification in new circumstances." Megarry, J in (1971) 1 WLR 1062 observed: "One must not, of course, construe even a reserved judgment of Russell

NEELACHAL I.NIGAM L. vs. ASST.COMNR.OF I.TAX

ITA/8/2005HC Orissa17 Nov 2021

Bench: DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR (CJ),MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA

Section 143(1)(a)

46 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters Court and as the Supreme Court has passed some specific directions in the Vineet Narain case, therefore, it was important for the officers sitting at Delhi and Jabalpur to have superintendence over the progress of the proceedings and the same cannot be said to be the interference or passing order on dictates