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 24clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai1,135Delhi983Mumbai955Kolkata733Bangalore481Ahmedabad401Hyderabad384Pune381Jaipur362Karnataka186Chandigarh180Nagpur153Indore134Cochin122Surat119Amritsar112Raipur111Visakhapatnam110Lucknow95Cuttack90Rajkot74Panaji67Patna56Calcutta49SC34Guwahati33Telangana27Jodhpur22Allahabad17Jabalpur16Agra16Varanasi14Rajasthan7Dehradun6Ranchi6Orissa6Kerala5A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2Andhra Pradesh2Himachal Pradesh1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1DIPAK MISRA R.K. AGRAWAL PRAFULLA C. PANT1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 53Limitation/Time-bar2

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

24 Parganas Kolkata -700031. ii) The said Trial Court after adjudication dismissed the said suit on contest without any order as to cost on two grounds, one being that the defendant/ tenant is not a defaulter in payment of rent in respect of the suit property and the other ground being that the appellant plaintiff landlord has alternative accommodation

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

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. AMAN EXPORTS INTERNATIONAL

The appeal is disposed of

ITA/98/2024HC Rajasthan26 Sept 2024

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,ASHUTOSH KUMAR

For Appellant: Ms. K. Mamata Choudary
Section 260Section 260A(24)Section 5

24) of lT Act R/w. Section 5 of Limitation Act praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay

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