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.

6 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 120clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai176Chennai170Delhi128Karnataka123Kolkata97Chandigarh92Hyderabad64Bangalore61Pune60Jaipur52Raipur48Calcutta45Ahmedabad30Cuttack25Guwahati18Cochin18Rajkot18Surat16Indore14Lucknow14Amritsar12Patna11Visakhapatnam10Jodhpur7Nagpur7Panaji7SC6Varanasi6Telangana4Jabalpur3Dehradun2Orissa1Andhra Pradesh1Agra1Punjab & Haryana1Rajasthan1Himachal Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 80H7Section 43(6)(b)5Deduction3Section 129A2Section 143(2)2Depreciation2

M/S THAKKER SHIPPING P.LTD. vs. COMMR.OF CUSTOMS(GENERAL)

C.A. No.-007696-007696 - 2012Supreme Court30 Oct 2012

Bench: The Appellate Authority”. 3. The Facts Leading To The Present Appeal Are These. A Container Was Intercepted By M & P Wing Of Commissioner Of Customs (Preventive), Mumbai On 11.01.2001. It Was Found To Contain Assorted Electrical & Electronic Goods Of Foreign Origin. The Said Goods Were Imported By M/S Qureshi International & The Cargo Was Cleared From Nhava Sheva. The Clearance Of The Goods Was Handled By M/S Thakker Shipping P. Ltd., The

Section 108Section 129ASection 129BSection 129D(3)Section 129D(4)

Section 129D(4) of the Act before the Tribunal. As the said application could not be made within the prescribed period and was delayed by 10 days, an application for condonation of delay was filed with a prayer for condonation. The Tribunal on 28.11.2005, however, rejected the application for condonation of delay and consequently dismissed the appeal by the following

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,SIMLA vs. M/S GREEN WORLD CORPORATION

Appeals are disposed of with the aforementioned directions

C.A. No.-003312-003312 - 2009Supreme Court06 May 2009
Section 133Section 133ASection 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 80I

condoning the delay admitted the appeal without formulating the substantial questions of law as required under Section 260A. 10 By reason of an order dated 9.1.2006, the High Court entertained the appeal, stating: “Learned Counsel for the appellant states that though CIT, Shimla has locus-standi to file the present appeal, but as an abundant caution appeal may also

M/S. VIJAY INDUSTRIES vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are allowed

C.A. No.-001581-001582 - 2005Supreme Court01 Mar 2019

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

Section 80H

Delay condoned. 2) In all these appeals issue relates to the interpretation that is to be accorded to the provisions of Section 80HH of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). Section 80HH and other related provisions, as it existed at the relevant time, are to be taken note of. since we are concerned with

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,DIBRUGARH vs. DOOM DOOMA INDIA LTD

C.A. No.-001094-001094 - 2009Supreme Court18 Feb 2009
Section 260ASection 28Section 32Section 32(1)(i)Section 32(1)(ii)Section 43(6)(b)

Delay condoned. 2. Leave granted. 3. This batch of civil appeals is directed against judgments dated 22.11.06 and 8.1.07 of the High Court of Guwahati, Assam, in appeals under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in respect of assessment years 1988-89, 1989-90, 1990-91 and 1991- 92. 4. What is the meaning of the expression “depreciation

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 INCOME TAX 5 MUMBAI vs. M/S. ESSAR TELEHOLDINGS LTD. THROUGH ITS MANAGER

C.A. No.-002165-002165 - 2012Supreme Court31 Jan 2018

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

Section 10Section 143(2)Section 14A

120  of  2015,  C.A. No. 7395  of  2012, C.A. No. 7394  of  2012, C.A.   No.   121     of     2015,     C.A.   No.   122     of     2015,     C.A. Nos.1430­1432 of  2018 @ SLP(C) No. 8507­ 8509  of  2012,  C.A. No. 128  of  2015, C.A.No