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.

2 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 260Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi337Calcutta206Mumbai116Karnataka64Amritsar36Kolkata35Chennai27Telangana25Hyderabad19Ahmedabad16Chandigarh13Lucknow12Andhra Pradesh10Bangalore9SC9Indore7Cochin7Agra6Nagpur6Surat5Jaipur4Kerala4Rajasthan4Himachal Pradesh2Orissa2Dehradun2Pune2Punjab & Haryana2Raipur2Jodhpur1Varanasi1Gauhati1Cuttack1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 144C(13)3Section 144C3Section 270A2Section 270A(8)2Section 260A2Section 144C(2)2Addition to Income2

TDK ELECTRONICS AG, (FORMERLY KNOWN AS EPCOS AG),,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (IT), CIRCLE -1,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1810/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Feb 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviिनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Tdk Electronics Ag Vs. Acit (It), (Formerly Known As Epcos Ag) Circle-1, Pune C/O. Epcos India Pvt. Ltd., E-22-25, Midc Satpur, Nashik 422 007 Pan : Aaace9787H Appellant Respondent

Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(2)

condone the delay beyond the period prescribed in sub-section (2) of section 260A. The full Bench of 8 TDK Electronics

DEEPAK BHIKA SURYAWANSHI,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NASHIK

Appeal is allowed

ITA 98/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: Disposed
ITAT Pune
19 Jun 2024
AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Abhilasha Sanjay PawarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 250Section 254(1)Section 260ASection 270ASection 270A(8)Section 271(1)(c)Section 9

260A proceedings whereas the law regarding the tribunal’s jurisdiction to entertain such a pure question of law, not requiring any further detailed investigation on facts, is already settled in NTPC Ltd. Vs. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC). That being the case, we are of the considered view that going by the foregoing judicial precedent, this tribunal is very