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 10(20)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,160Chennai1,086Mumbai989Kolkata662Pune530Bangalore517Jaipur395Hyderabad361Ahmedabad341Karnataka205Chandigarh201Raipur163Nagpur160Surat158Amritsar125Visakhapatnam116Indore111Lucknow97Rajkot85Cuttack75Panaji71Cochin61Patna45SC41Calcutta41Guwahati29Telangana23Allahabad20Jodhpur19Agra17Varanasi17Dehradun13Jabalpur6Ranchi6Orissa5Rajasthan5Himachal Pradesh3A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2Punjab & Haryana2A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1DIPAK MISRA R.K. AGRAWAL PRAFULLA C. PANT1Kerala1Andhra Pradesh1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 106Section 12A2Condonation of Delay2

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S RURAL EDUCATION AND WOMEN WELFARE SOCIETY

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/434/2019HC Punjab & Haryana13 Jan 2020

Bench: MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI,MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN

Section 10Section 12A

delay of 11 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. ITA No.434 of 2019: This appeal has been filed against the order dated 17.1.2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Camp Bench at Jalandhar (for short, 'the Tribunal') allowing the appeal of the assessee and thereby holding it entitled for exemption/approval under Section 10

SHIV CHARAN GUPTA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANOTHER

ITA/477/2018HC Punjab & Haryana20 Jan 2020

Bench: The Tribunal On 24.02.2020. [Ajay Tewari] Judge [Avneesh Jhingan] Judge January 20, 2020

Section 254(1)
Section 260A

Section 254(1) of the Act by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh 'A' Bench, Chandigarh in ITA No.491/CHD/2017 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'] for assessment year 2004-05, declining the application for condonation of delay of 167 days. [2] The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that even if the explanation for delay was not ironclad