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.

7 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 13(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai1,799Delhi1,761Mumbai1,649Kolkata1,025Bangalore854Pune822Hyderabad646Jaipur559Ahmedabad526Raipur306Nagpur302Chandigarh297Surat297Visakhapatnam240Karnataka239Indore213Amritsar181Cochin151Rajkot145Lucknow143Cuttack121Panaji99Patna80Calcutta71SC54Dehradun41Guwahati36Telangana34Agra33Jodhpur32Allahabad31Jabalpur22Varanasi20Ranchi10Rajasthan7Orissa6Kerala5Himachal Pradesh4Andhra Pradesh2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2Punjab & Haryana1DIPAK MISRA R.K. AGRAWAL PRAFULLA C. PANT1Gauhati1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1R.M. LODHA ANIL R. DAVE1

Key Topics

Section 52Addition to Income2

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) vs. M/S SHRI RAMDOOT PRASAD SEWA SAMITI

ITA/62/2020HC Rajasthan08 Feb 2022

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,SUDESH BANSAL

For Respondent: Mr. Atarup Banerjee
Section 5

Section 5 of the Limitation Act praying for condonation of delay in filing the first appeal was supported by a medical certificate issued by a registered medical practitioner bearing the registration number of the said medical practitioner. It has also been contended that a certificate issued by a medical practitioner is generally taken into consideration until and unless there

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S AJMER VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED

ITA/153/2019HC Rajasthan08 Nov 2021

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,REKHA BORANA

2 Present: Mr. A.S. Rawat, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Siddhartha Sah, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. C.S. Rawat, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. Amar Murti Shukla, Advocate for respondent nos. 4 & 5. Dated: 19th March, 2019 Coram: Hon’ble Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J. Hon’ble N.S. Dhanik, J. Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J. (Oral) The delay

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CENTRAL, JAIPUR vs. M/S ANKIT CHIRAG DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.

ITA/11/2019HC Rajasthan14 Sept 2023

Bench: AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH,VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Section 34

delay of 10 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of. FAO(OS) 11/2019 1. The challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 30th October, 2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in OMP No. 564/2010, which was a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in FAO (OS) 11/2019 Page

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S AJMER VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD.

ITA/151/2019HC Rajasthan08 Nov 2021

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,REKHA BORANA

Section 7A(1). Thus no interest could have been charged prior to issue of the order dated 12th September, 2008 and 24th October, 2008. The orders dated 12th September, 2008 and 24th October, 2008 insofar as it demands respective amount towards interest cannot be sustained.” 9. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the Union of India that

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S AJMER VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED

ITA/157/2019HC Rajasthan08 Nov 2021

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,REKHA BORANA

Section 7A(1). Thus no interest could have been charged prior to issue of the order dated 12th September, 2008 and 24th October, 2008. The orders dated 12th September, 2008 and 24th October, 2008 insofar as it demands respective amount towards interest cannot be sustained.” 9. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the Union of India that

M/S UDASEE STAMPING PVT. LTD. vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III, JAIPUR

ITA/132/2019HC Rajasthan16 Jul 2021

Bench: SANGEET LODHA,MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

Section 7A(1). Thus no interest could have been charged prior to issue of the order dated 12th September, 2008 and 24th October, 2008. The orders dated 12th September, 2008 and 24th October, 2008 insofar as it demands respective amount towards interest cannot be sustained.” 9. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the Union of India that

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SKYWAYS INDUSTRIAL ESTATE COMPANY (P) LTD.

ITA/82/2020HC Rajasthan14 Feb 2022

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,SUDESH BANSAL

2. This Regulation protects fundamental rights and freedoms of natural persons and in particular their right to the protection of personal data. 3. The free movement of personal data within the Union shall be neither restricted nor prohibited for reasons connected with the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data. Article 4: Definitions: Digitally Signed