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.

10 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 4(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai4,160Mumbai4,007Delhi3,174Kolkata2,188Pune1,819Bangalore1,683Ahmedabad1,361Hyderabad1,149Jaipur926Patna742Surat636Chandigarh571Indore541Nagpur519Cochin466Visakhapatnam425Raipur412Lucknow411Amritsar327Rajkot325Karnataka311Cuttack286Panaji201Agra153Calcutta132Guwahati105Dehradun102Jabalpur85Jodhpur82Allahabad69SC62Ranchi59Telangana52Varanasi38Andhra Pradesh17Orissa10Rajasthan10Punjab & Haryana9Kerala7Himachal Pradesh4A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2R.M. LODHA ANIL R. DAVE1Gauhati1DIPAK MISRA R.K. AGRAWAL PRAFULLA C. PANT1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1VIKRAMAJIT SEN SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1

Key Topics

Section 12A4Limitation/Time-bar4Section 53Section 260A3Condonation of Delay2Exemption2Addition 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

4 support of the said application praying for condonation of delay the landlord/appellant had submitted a medical certificate issued by a doctor wherein it has been mentioned that Debabrata Nath, the elder brother of the two brothers who are the landlords had been suffering from low back pain and was under his treatment since 13.04.2017 to 21.08.2017 and had been

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

RAJASTHAN TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY vs. THE C I T , EXEMPTION,

The appeal is disposed of

ITA/35/2021HC Rajasthan10 Mar 2025

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,MANEESH SHARMA

Section 10Section 12ASection 260A

1. This is an appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). The order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 11.08.2020 dismissing the appeal being time barred. 2. The appellant-university was established under the Rajasthan Technical University Act, 2006 by the Government of Rajasthan. The university was incorporated with effect

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL) vs. SHRI VIJAY KUMAR SAINI

The Appeal is allowed to the extent indicated herein above

ITA/146/2024HC Rajasthan16 Dec 2024

Bench: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Raipur Bench, Raipur (For Short The "Itat") In The Online Portal Via E-Filing Mode, Against The Order Dated 27.7.2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income- Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi {For Short The "Cit (Appeals)"}. However, Thereafter, He Was Not

For Appellant: Mr. Gyan Prakash Shukla, Advocate
Section 260A

1. This tax appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’) was admitted for hearing on 22.4.2025 by formulating the following substantial question of law: - ““Whether the ITAT was justified in dismissing the appeal barred by limitation holding that the appellant assessee has not filed an application for condonation of delay, by recording

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

1, Article 4(5) and Article 25 of the GDPR and the same are extracted hereunder: “Article 1: Subject-matter and objectives: 1. This Regulation lays down rules relating to the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and rules relating to the free movement of personal data. 2. This Regulation protects fundamental rights

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

condone the delay of 191 days in filing the present appeal. l Counsel for the Appellant : Ms. K. Mamata Choudary, i Senior SC for lncome Tax I Counsel forthe Respohdent : None appeared I The Court delivered thb following: JUDGMENT THE HO]{'BLE TTIE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE rHE HoN,BLtr sRr rrSlB, r. 'REENT'AS RA, ITTANo. gSof 2024 JUDGMEN1T