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.

3 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 68clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi647Mumbai644Chennai574Kolkata564Ahmedabad273Bangalore267Hyderabad249Jaipur199Pune168Surat142Karnataka130Chandigarh121Lucknow87Indore87Rajkot77Calcutta71Amritsar58Panaji49Raipur49Cochin48Nagpur36Patna32Visakhapatnam24Guwahati24Cuttack22Agra18Jodhpur15SC14Dehradun12Telangana12Varanasi10Jabalpur8Allahabad7Orissa4Ranchi3Rajasthan3Andhra Pradesh1Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 260A2

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

condonation of delay of 68 days in filing the appeal has been filed. As such, for want of notice, the appellant could not appear and file such application. Hence, this appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section

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 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