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.

5 results for “condonation of delay”+ Cash Depositclear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai987Mumbai613Delhi525Ahmedabad430Kolkata407Hyderabad403Pune375Bangalore347Jaipur238Chandigarh216Amritsar180Surat170Visakhapatnam151Indore149Cochin144Patna132Lucknow130Rajkot121Raipur111Agra86Cuttack72Nagpur72Panaji62Calcutta37Allahabad34Jabalpur31Guwahati25Karnataka23Jodhpur23Varanasi20Dehradun10Ranchi6SC5Telangana3

Key Topics

Section 434Section 36(1)(vii)4Deduction3Section 37(1)2

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, KOLKATA vs. M/S. B. ARUN KUMAR & COMPANY

C.A. No.-006223-006223 - 2008Supreme Court22 Oct 2008

Bench: Cegat. The Revenue Also Moved Cross Appeal/Cross Objection Before The Tribunal. Pursuant To The Commissioner'S Order, The Assessee Deposited Rs.45,59,733/- In Cash. For The Balance Amount, Bank Guarantee Was Furnished. On 30Th April, 1990, The Tribunal Passed Order No.154-Cal/1990-154 Allowing The Assessee'S Appeal. By The Said Order, Revenue Was Directed To Refund The Redemption Fine & Penalty Within Thirty Days & In Default The Department Was Liable To Pay Interest At The Rate Of 12%. We Quote Hereinbelow The Operative Part Of The Order Passed By The Tribunal, Which Reads As Under: 1

Delay condoned. Leave granted. By Commissioner's Order dated 30th October, 1986, redemption fine of Rs.85 lakhs and penalty of Rs.15 lakhs came to be imposed. Against the said order, the assessee (respondent herein) filed an appeal before CEGAT. The Revenue also moved cross appeal/cross objection before the Tribunal. Pursuant to the Commissioner's order, the assessee deposited Rs.45

M/S D. N. SINGH THROUGH PARTNER DUDHESHWAR NATH SINGH vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

C.A. No.-003738-003739 - 2023Supreme Court16 May 2023

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH

Section 260A

condoned. 2. Leave granted. A. THE FACTS 3. The appellant-assessee carried on business as carriage contractor for bitumen loaded from oil companies namely HPCL, IOCL and BPCL from Haldia. The goods were to be delivered to various divisions of the Road Construction Department of the Government of Bihar. According to the appellant, it has been in the business

M/S NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs. COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX APPEALS(41)

The appeals are dismissed

C.A. No.-015613-015613 - 2017Supreme Court02 Jul 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI

Section 194Section 201

Delay condoned. 2. These appeals have been filed against the common judgment of Delhi High Court dated 16.02.2017 by which the Delhi High Court   has   allowed   the   writ   petitions   filed   by   the   private respondents herein.  The appeals have been filed by New Okhla Industrial   Development   Authority,   Greater   Noida   Industrial Development Authority, Commissioner of Income Tax as well as Income

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ALOM EXTRUCTIONS LIMITED

C.A. No.-007771-007771 - 2009Supreme Court25 Nov 2009
Section 43

condoned. Leave granted. A short question which arises for determination in this batch of civil appeals is: whether omission [deletion] of the second proviso to Section 43-B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Finance Act, 2003, operated with effect from 1st April, 2004, or whether it operated retrospectively with effect from 1st April, 1988? Prior to Finance

M/S. SOUTHERN TECHNOLOGIES LTD. vs. JOINT COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, COIMBATORE

C.A. No.-001337-001337 - 2003Supreme Court11 Jan 2010
Section 145Section 2(24)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 37Section 37(1)

condone any delay in making such report. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the Central Government may, on the recommendation of the Bank and having regard to the adequacy of the paid-up capital and reserves of a non- banking financial company in relation to its deposit liabilities, declare by order in writing that the provisions