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 2(29)clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai980Delhi822Mumbai801Kolkata535Bangalore370Ahmedabad332Pune329Jaipur261Hyderabad256Karnataka177Nagpur129Raipur122Chandigarh117Surat114Indore97Amritsar95Visakhapatnam85Panaji82Lucknow77Rajkot75Cuttack67Cochin55Calcutta40Patna34SC32Guwahati21Agra21Allahabad20Telangana20Dehradun15Varanasi14Jodhpur11Kerala7Jabalpur7Rajasthan5Orissa4Andhra Pradesh2Ranchi2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1DIPAK MISRA R.K. AGRAWAL PRAFULLA C. PANT1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Himachal Pradesh1

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

29 27. We adopt the same procedure. The commissioner can only have the power to revise valuation within a reasonable period of time. In the case of Santosh kumar Shivgonda Patil and Ors. v. Balasaheb Tukaram Shevale and Ors. reported in (2009) 9 SCC 352 the Supreme Court computed reasonable time in the subject Act to be three years

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

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)

condone the delay of the proceedings which is not before it as limitation for framing of reassessment order section 147/143(3) which, in terms of section 153 of the Act (as then applicable ) lapsed on 31.03.1997. 74. The Supreme Court in Popat Bahiru Govardhane v. Land Acquisition Officer29, held thus : 16. It is a settled legal proposition that

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

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 the following questions of law for our consideration:- “A. Whether on the facts