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.

42 results for “condonation of delay”+ Exemptionclear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai879Mumbai828Delhi736Ahmedabad598Pune553Kolkata405Jaipur372Bangalore294Hyderabad264Chandigarh238Nagpur167Cochin130Cuttack122Indore121Surat112Lucknow108Visakhapatnam105Rajkot95Amritsar94Raipur90Patna49SC42Agra42Guwahati32Jodhpur31Panaji27Allahabad23Dehradun19Jabalpur18Ranchi16Varanasi9A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2R.M. LODHA ANIL R. DAVE1DIPAK MISRA R.K. AGRAWAL PRAFULLA C. PANT1VIKRAMAJIT SEN SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1

Key Topics

Exemption14Section 11B10Section 80H7Section 1487Addition to Income7Penalty5Deduction5Section 143(2)4Section 1394Section 194H

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 14 vs. JASJIT SINGH

The appeals are dismissed in terms of signed

C.A. No.-006566-006566 - 2023Supreme Court26 Sept 2023

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT

Section 132Section 132ASection 139Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151Section 153Section 153(1)Section 153A

CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 163626/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) Date : 26-09-2023 These

Showing 1–20 of 42 · Page 1 of 3

4
Section 36(1)(vii)4
Section 35L4

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, KOLHAPUR vs. M/S CHAPHALKAR BROTHERS PUNE

The appeals are dismissed in terms of the signed

C.A. No.-006513-006514 - 2012Supreme Court07 Dec 2017

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

Section 3Section 3(13)

exemption from entertainment duty for a period of three years and partial remission for a period of two years should go towards helping the industry to set up such highly capital intensive entertainment centers. This being the case, it is difficult to accept Mr. Narasimha's argument that it is only the immediate object and not the larger object which

THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF COOPERATION FOOD AND CONSUMER PROTECTION vs. A. KINGSTON DAVID

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

C.A. No.-007655-007656 - 2021Supreme Court11 Dec 2021

Bench: The High Court. The Review Petition Was Dismissed On 31 January 2019. The Special Leave Petitions Were Filed On 28 March 2019. Hence, Sufficient Cause For Condoning The Delay Has Been Shown. The Delay In Filing The Special Leave Petitions Is Condoned. 2 Leave Granted. Digitally Signed By Chetan Kumar Date: 2021.12.16 16:29:46 Ist Reason: Signature Not Verified

delay in filing the Special Leave Petitions is condoned. 2 Leave granted. Digitally signed by Chetan Kumar Date: 2021.12.16 16:29:46 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified CA 7655-56/2021 2 3 These appeals arise from a judgment of a Division Bench at the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dated 8 December 2016, and the judgment dated

M/S DALMIA POWER LTD. vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are allowed

C.A. No.-009496-009499 - 2019Supreme Court18 Dec 2019

Bench: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDU MALHOTRA

Section 139Section 139(5)

condonation   of   delay   while   filing   the   revised   Returns.   A perusal of Section 119(2)(b) shows that it is applicable in cases of genuine hardship to admit an application, claim any exemption

INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (GWALIOR) M.P. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX GWALIOR M.P

C.A. No.-006262-006262 - 2010Supreme Court16 Feb 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE

Section 12Section 12ASection 154Section 2(15)Section 21Section 260

condoned the delay and granted the registration certificate as prayed for by the appellant. In clause 3 of the registration certificate, it was mentioned that the certificate is granted without prejudice to the examination on merits of the claim of exemption

MOTILAL CHHADAMI LAL JAIN vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , DELHI ETC

In the result of C.A. 1427/-8/75 are allowed and the

- 0Supreme Court08 Apr 1991
For Respondent: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , DELHI ETC
Section 4Section 4(3)(i)

condonation 240 of delay and proceed to dispose of all the four appeals by this common judgment. The assessee--appellant in all these cases is a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) known as M/s Moti Lal Chhadami Lal Jain carrying on business at Ferozabad. The HUF consisted of the karta, Chhadamilal Jain, and his son Bimal Kumar Jain. Appeal No.1426

INCOME TAX OFFICER,MUMBAI vs. VENKATESH PREMISES COOP.STY.LTD

C.A. No.-002706-002706 - 2018Supreme Court12 Mar 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA

Section 79

Delay condoned.  Leave granted in all the Special Leave Petitions.  2. A common question of law arises for consideration in this batch   of   appeals,   whether   certain   receipts   by   co­operative societies,   from   its   members   i.e.   non­occupancy   charges, transfer charges, common amenity fund charges and certain other   charges,   are   exempt

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LIMITED

C.A. No.-005409-005409 - 2019Supreme Court25 Jul 2019

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 260ASection 92C

Delay condoned. In view of the order dated 02.11.2017 passed by this Court in C.I.T., New Delhi Vs. M/s. Spice Enfotainment Ltd. (Civil Appeal No. 285 of 2014 etc. etc.), this special leave petition also stands dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.” 2 “SPIL” 3 “AY” 4 “MSIL

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S PEPSI FOODS LTD. (NOW PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.)

C.A. No.-001106-001106 - 2021Supreme Court06 Apr 2021

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

Section 254

delay in the procedure. Broom has stated the maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit — an act of court shall prejudice no man. Therefore, having regard to the time normally consumed for adjudication, the ten years' exemption or holiday from the application of the Rent Act would become illusory, if the suit has to be filed within that time and be disposed

M/S SARAL WIRE CRAFT PVT. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAX,

C.A. No.-005631-005632 - 2015Supreme Court20 Jul 2015
Section 11ASection 37C

Delay condoned. Leave granted. The Appellant is aggrieved by the fact that the right of Appeal bestowed on the assessee by the Central Excise Act, 1944 (in short ‘the Act’) has virtually Page 2 JUDGMENT been rendered nugatory since, successively, its Appeal has been declined consideration on merits, having instead held as time-barred. Succinctly stated, the Appellant had sought

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. SUBROS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY

MA-001540 - 2021Supreme Court20 Sept 2021

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH

EXEMPTION) Petitioner VERSUS SUBROS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY Respondent O R D E R Delay condoned. The application for restoration of review

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPN)N.DELHI vs. RAUNAQ EDUCATION FOUNDATION

The appeal is dismissed with

C.A. No.-000090-000090 - 2013Supreme Court07 Jan 2013

Bench: The Income Tax Commissioner. The Income Tax Commissioner Was Pleased To Dismiss The Appeal By An Order Dated 29Th May, 2005. Being Aggrieved By The Said Order Of Dismissal, The Respondent-Assessee Had Filed An Appeal Before The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench “F” At New Delhi. The Said Appeal, Being Ita No.2657/Del/2006, Was Allowed By An Order Dated 09Th March, 2007. Being Aggrieved By The Said Order, The Revenue Had Filed Ita No.150 Of 2008 Before The High Court Of Delhi At 2

Section 11Section 13Section 13(2)Section 80G

EXEMPTION), NEW DELHI .....APPELLANT. VERSUS RAUNAQ EDUCATION FOUNDATION ....RESPONDENT J U D G M E N T ANIL R. DAVE, J. 1) Delay condoned

COMMNR.,CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS, INDORE vs. M/S. PARENTERAL DRUGS (I) LTD

Appeals are allowed, the

C.A. No.-004944-004944 - 2004Supreme Court31 Mar 2009

Bench: The Adjudicating Authority Was Whether Intravenous Fluids Having A Therapeutic Value Stood Covered Under Exemption Notification No.3/2001. In The Lead Matter – M/S. Parenteral Drugs (I) Ltd. - The Respondents Were Engaged In The Manufacture Of Various Types Of Intravenous Fluids. They Were Availing The Benefits Of Notification No.6/2000, Dated 1.3.2000. The Said Notification Was Amended By Notification No.36/2000, Dated 4.5.2000, Whereby Entry No.47-A Was Added Thereby Exempting “Intravenous Fluids” From Payment Of Excise Duty. However, From 1.3.2001, The Earlier Notifications Were Replaced By Notification No.3/2001 Which Defined “Intravenous Fluids” As Those Which Are Used For Sugar, Electrolyte Or Fluid Replenishment. In Other Words, Open-Ended Exemption Stood Restricted By The Above Three Qualifications. 1

Delay condoned. In this batch of Civil Appeals, the main issue which arose for determination before the Adjudicating Authority was whether Intravenous Fluids having a therapeutic value stood covered under Exemption

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI vs. M/S. NEBULAE HEALTH CARE LTD

C.A. No.-002789-002789 - 2007Supreme Court27 Oct 2015
Section 11A

Delay condoned. 2) These appeals raise an issue of eligibility of concession/exemption from excise duty that is provided under Notification nos. 8/1999, 8/2000, 8/2001, 8/2002 and 8/2003 to the Small Scale Industrial Units (for short, 'SSI Units'). It is not in dispute that the respondents – assessees in these appeals fulfill eligibility conditions for availing the benefit of SSI exemption

THE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS (INCOME TAX) vs. TIGER GLOBAL INTERNATIONAL II HOLDINGS

C.A. No.-000262-000262 - 2026Supreme Court15 Jan 2026

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

Delay condoned. 2. Leave granted. The present appeals arise from a final judgment and common order dated 28.08.2024 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi1 in W.P. (C) Nos. 6764, 6765 and 6766 of 2020 and are, therefore, disposed of by this common judgment. 3. For the sake of clarity and systematic analysis, this judgment is divided

COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX III MUMBAI vs. M/S VODAFONE INDIA LTD

Appeals are dismissed

C.A. No.-010815-010819 - 2014Supreme Court06 May 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA

Delay condoned. Leave granted. 1.1 These Civil Appeals have been filed by the Revenue, i.e. the Service Tax Department, being aggrieved by various orders passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (“CESTAT”, for the sake of convenience). 2. The orders passed by CESTAT in all these appeals have been in favour of the respondents-assessees. The CESTAT

GASTRADE INTERNATIONAL vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, KANDLA

C.A. No.-004475-004475 - 2025Supreme Court28 Mar 2025

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Delay condoned in Special Leave Petition arising out of Diary No.32623 of 2024. Leave granted in all the Special Leave Petitions. 2. The issue involved in this batch of appeals is, whether, the imported goods is to be treated as Base Oil as claimed by the appellants or High Speed Diesel (HSD) as Digitally signed by ARJUN BISHT Date

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 10 vs. M/S KRISHAK BHARTI COOPERATIVE LTD

C.A. No.-000836-000836 - 2018Supreme Court15 Sept 2023

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA

Section 143Section 263Section 90

Delay condoned in SLP (C) Diary No. 4647 of 2018 and SLP (C) Diary No. 15333 of 2023. 2. Leave granted in SLP (C) No. _____ @ Diary No. 4647 of 2018, SLP(C) No. 11204 of 2023 and SLP (C) No. _____ @ Diary No. 15333 of 2023. Digitally signed by POOJA SHARMA Date: 2023.09.15 16:49:52 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified

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

COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX DELHI vs. QUICK HEAL TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED

In the result, the appeals are allowed

C.A. No.-005167 - 2022Supreme Court05 Aug 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA

Section 35LSection 65Section 66ESection 73(1)Section 83

Delay condoned. 1 Digitally signed by Sanjay Kumar Date: 2022.08.05 15:23:05 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified 3. This appeal under Section 35L(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944   (for   short,   ‘the   Act   1944’),   as   made   applicable   to   the service tax by Section 83 of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 (for short