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 14clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai1,701Delhi1,646Mumbai1,561Kolkata944Pune865Bangalore835Hyderabad602Jaipur507Ahmedabad494Nagpur317Raipur292Surat289Chandigarh268Karnataka232Visakhapatnam189Indore185Amritsar164Cochin145Cuttack132Lucknow118Rajkot116Panaji103Patna67Calcutta62SC50Jodhpur38Guwahati37Agra34Telangana30Dehradun30Allahabad26Varanasi19Jabalpur15Ranchi9Rajasthan7Orissa6Kerala5Himachal Pradesh4Andhra Pradesh4A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2R.M. LODHA ANIL R. DAVE1Punjab & Haryana1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1DIPAK MISRA R.K. AGRAWAL PRAFULLA C. PANT1Gauhati1

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

condone the delay by enacting Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 in order to enable the Courts to do substantial justice to the parties by disposing of matters on merit. The expression sufficient cause used by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the Courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends

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

ITA/153/2019HC Rajasthan08 Nov 2021

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,REKHA BORANA

delay is, therefore, condoned. Since the appellants are either persons in whose favor permits were granted by the Regional Transport Authority, or in whose favor the permits were transferred later, they are undoubtedly aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge. We see no reason, therefore, to deny them leave to prefer an appeal against the order passed

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

Sections 2(h), 2(j), 2(n), 2(t), 2(u) & 2(x). It is argued that in terms of the said provisions information of Registrants would be clearly covered and thus would have to be protected from disclosure. The said sections are extracted hereinunder for ease of reference: “2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,— (h) “data