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.

6 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 6(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai3,983Mumbai3,791Delhi2,973Kolkata2,083Pune1,787Bangalore1,661Ahmedabad1,349Hyderabad1,117Jaipur878Patna740Surat615Chandigarh559Indore527Nagpur480Cochin440Visakhapatnam418Raipur408Lucknow360Amritsar326Rajkot305Karnataka296Cuttack277Panaji174Agra134Dehradun97Guwahati89Calcutta87Jodhpur79Jabalpur64SC62Ranchi59Allahabad59Telangana46Varanasi37Andhra Pradesh16Rajasthan10Orissa9Kerala7Punjab & Haryana6Himachal Pradesh4A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2Gauhati1R.M. LODHA ANIL R. DAVE1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1VIKRAMAJIT SEN SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1DIPAK MISRA R.K. AGRAWAL PRAFULLA C. PANT1

Key Topics

Section 106Section 2633Section 54B3Exemption3Condonation of Delay3Section 54F2Section 1482Section 12A2Deduction

KESAR SINGH vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANR

ITA/317/2019HC Punjab & Haryana30 Oct 2019

Bench: MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI,MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN

Section 260A

1. ITA No. 330 of 2019 (O&M) Gurinderjit Singh .....Appellant Vs. PR. Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. ...Respondents 2. ITA No. 315 of 2019 (O&M) Kesar Singh .....Appellant Vs. PR. Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. ...Respondents 3. ITA No. 316 of 2019 (O&M) Kesar Singh .....Appellant Vs. PR. Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. ...Respondents

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) LUDHIANA vs. M/S PUNJAB RICE LAND PVT LTD

The Appeals are dismissed

ITA/221/2023HC Punjab & Haryana06 Mar 2024

Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA

Section 148

1. These applications are filed by the appellant(s) seeking condonation of delay of 166 days and 126 days in filing of the respective Appeals. 2. Having regard to the averments made in these applications, the same are allowed delay of 166 days and 126 days in filing of the respective appeals is hereby condoned. Suresh Kumar

2

PCIT ROHTAK vs. MS DIN DAYAL PURUSHOTAM LAL

ITA/110/2024HC Punjab & Haryana16 Dec 2024

Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH

Section 263Section 263(1)

delay is condoned. the order of the Income Tax decided by a common order in 6 and 2017-18. 4 ) t t ) t t f x n MOHIT GOYAL 2024.12.17 17:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document ITA-110-2024(O 2. The Re be sub cancell Income 3. We hav ITAT w settled section

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NEW DELHI vs. MANJIT SINGH BAIDWAN

ITA/59/2023HC Punjab & Haryana09 May 2024

Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA

Section 54F

1. The pre wherein a s b ju L &M) HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGAR ISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( )-II, NEW DELHI Vs. NGH BAIDWAN **** HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SU **** Mrs. Urvashi Dhugga, Sr. Standi for the appellant. **** RAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) -2023 Application for condonation of wed and accordingly delay

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

BAHADUR SINGH vs. COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FARIDABAD AND ANOTHER

ITA/56/2020HC Punjab & Haryana10 Feb 2020

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

Section 260Section 54B

Section 54B of the Act. 5. The contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant lacks merit. 6. It is an undisputed fact that after selling the agricultural land the appellant purchased a land worth his share, in the name of his wife. The issue is directly covered by the decision of this Court in Dinesh Verma's case (supra