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 201(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai380Delhi309Mumbai301Bangalore233Pune143Nagpur132Karnataka129Kolkata124Jaipur119Ahmedabad115Cochin97Raipur58Visakhapatnam48Hyderabad45Indore36Surat34Panaji30Chandigarh29Cuttack18Kerala17Rajkot14Lucknow13Varanasi12Jodhpur10Dehradun9Patna8SC6Amritsar5Agra5Calcutta4Guwahati3Jabalpur3Andhra Pradesh2Ranchi2DIPAK MISRA R.K. AGRAWAL PRAFULLA C. PANT1Telangana1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 194H4Section 1543Section 129A2Section 158B2Section 201(1)2Section 11A2

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)

3 Committee’) constituted under sub section (1B) of Section 129A of the Act called for and examined the records of the proceedings leading to order in original dated 21.07.2004 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (General) Mumbai (for short, ‘the Commissioner’) for satisfying itself as to the legality and propriety of the said order. The Committee on consideration

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX-I,NEW DELHI vs. VATIKA TOWNSHIP P.LTD

Appeals of the assessees are allowed deleting the surcharge levied by the

C.A. No.-008750-008750 - 2014Supreme Court15 Sept 2014
Section 113Section 132Section 154Section 158B

Delay condoned. The question which fell for consideration before the High Court was as to whether the proviso appended to Section 113 of the Income Tax Act is clarificatory and/or curative in nature. The said provision had come into force with effect from 01.06.2002. It reads as under: “Provided that the tax chargeable under this section shall be increased

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,NEW DELHI vs. M/S ELI LILLY & COMPANY (INDIA) P.LTD

C.A. No.-005114-005114 - 2007Supreme Court25 Mar 2009
Section 133ASection 192(1)Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(ii)

3) of section 200.” Penalty for Failure to Deduct Tax at Source: “Section 271C: (1) If any person fails to – (a) Deduct the whole or any part of the tax as required by or under the provisions of Chapter XVII-B; or (b) Pay the whole or any part of the tax as required by or under, - (i) Sub-section

THE DIR. PRASAR BHARATI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THIRUVANANTH

C.A. No.-003496-003497 - 2018Supreme Court03 Apr 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE

Section 194HSection 201(1)

Delay condoned. 2. Leave granted. 3. These appeals are directed against the final judgment and order dated 20.11.2009 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Income Tax Appeal No.27 of 2009 and Income Tax Appeal No.62 of 2009 whereby the High Court allowed the appeals preferred by the respondent herein and 1 Digitally signed by ASHA SUNDRIYAL

M/S. JAI FIBRES LTD. vs. COMMNR.OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI -III

The appeal is allowed

C.A. No.-001950-001950 - 2006Supreme Court15 Nov 2007
For Respondent: COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI-III
Section 11ASection 35E(4)Section 37

Delay condoned. 2. Interpretation of a Circular dated 24.09.1992, which was published on 15.10.1992 in the Trade Circular by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, is in question in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 9.8.2005 passed by the Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. E/3137/99 (Mumbai) and E/CO/389/99 (Mumbai

COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI vs. M/S. SANDAN VIKAS (I) LTD

Appeal stands disposed of with

C.A. No.-009730-009730 - 2003Supreme Court01 Jul 2015

condoning the delay in filing the appeal. In view thereof, we are of the opinion that the matter needs to be heard by a three-Judge Bench. Ordered accordingly. The Registry is directed to obtain necessary instruction in this regard from Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for listing of this matter before a three-Judge Bench