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.

10 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 260clear

Sorted by relevance

Karnataka170Mumbai163Chennai104Delhi75Kolkata74Bangalore57Calcutta38Jaipur30Cuttack29Pune28Raipur27Hyderabad21Chandigarh20Ahmedabad16Visakhapatnam14Varanasi13Cochin13Panaji11SC10Telangana9Surat9Lucknow6Indore6Andhra Pradesh6Rajkot5Allahabad5Kerala4Amritsar4Patna3Nagpur3Agra2Punjab & Haryana2Rajasthan1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Guwahati1Orissa1

Key Topics

Section 1486Section 1544Section 194H4Section 2603Section 12A3Section 1442Section 142(1)2Section 143(2)2Deduction2Exemption

COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, RAJKOT vs. SHATRUSHAILYA DIGVIJAYSINGH JADEJA

C.A. No.-004411-004411 - 2003Supreme Court01 Sept 2005
For Respondent: Shatrusailya Digvijaysingh Jadeja
Section 143(3)Section 246Section 95

section 95(i)(c) of the Scheme; that the delay in filing the revisions was not condoned and, consequently, the assessee was not eligible to take the benefit of the scheme. In this connection, learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Computwel Systems P. Ltd v. W. Hasan & Another reported in (2003) 260

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

2
Rectification u/s 1542
Section 194HSection 201(1)

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 Date

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 after the return is filed. 6. On 27.11.2000, the CIT issued a show cause notice to the appellant stating

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. 2. Leave granted in all these matters. 3. In these batch of appeals, most of which are preferred by the Commissioner(s) of Income Tax (hereinafter referred to as 'the Department'), with the exception of few appeals filed by the assessees, the question of law which has fallen for consideration is as to whether the proviso appended

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

COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. JINDAL EQUIP.LEAS.& CONSULT.SERVICE LTD

Appeals are disposed of with

C.A. No.-004596-004596 - 2003Supreme Court19 Jan 2010

Bench: Us, Which Is, Of Course, Disputed By The Assessee(S) That The High Court Has Failed To Notice The Market Value Of The Shares At The Time Of Issue Of Ncd. We Express No Opinion On The Merits Of The Case. We Expect The High Court To Answer The Above Question In Accordance With Law. Accordingly, Civil Appeals Are Disposed Of With No Order As To Costs. ..................J.

Section 260

Delay condoned. Leave granted in the special leave petition. Having gone through the matter at length, we are not satisfied with the manner in which the High Court had disposed of the Income Tax Appeals filed by the Department under Section 260

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

VATSALA SHENOY vs. JT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

C.A. No.-001234-001234 - 2012Supreme Court18 Oct 2016
Section 260Section 583(4)(a)

Delay condoned in Special Leave Petition (C) No.....CC 9101 and 10193 of 2014. 2) Leave granted. 3) All these appeals (except Civil Appeal No. 1245 of 2012 and Civil Appeals arising out of SLP (C) No....CC Nos. 9101 and 10193 of 2014 and SLP (C) No. 14812 of 2014, which are filed by the Revenue) are preferred

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

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. CHHABIL DASS AGARWAL

C.A. No.-006704-006704 - 2013Supreme Court08 Aug 2013
Section 10Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 4

Delay condoned. 3. Leave granted. 4. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Sikkim at Gangtok in Writ Petition(C) No.44 of 2009, dated 05.10.2010. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has quashed the order of assessment passed by the Assistant CIT, Circle-I, Siliguri under