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.

9 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 260Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi154Amritsar36Mumbai22Hyderabad21Chennai20Chandigarh9SC9Lucknow9Kolkata8Indore7Ahmedabad7Nagpur6Cochin6Agra6Jaipur5Bangalore3Dehradun2Surat2Raipur2Jodhpur1Varanasi1Jabalpur1Pune1Rajkot1

Key Topics

Section 260A6Section 43(6)(b)5Section 1323Deduction3Section 143(2)2Section 34(1)2Section 1392Section 132A2Depreciation2Addition to Income

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

condonation of delay were filed and pending. On the question of law, learned counsel invited our attention to section 95(i)(c) and submitted that the scheme was a Code by itself; that the object of the scheme was to recover the taxes locked in the pending litigation and for the purposes of the applicability of the scheme, appeals, references

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 Court
2
06 May 2009
Section 133Section 133ASection 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 80I

Section 260A of the Act on or about 17.10.2005. On or about 30.11.2005, the High Court while condoning the delay

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

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act 19616. 2 The Revenue is in appeal. 3 Against the decision of the High Court for AY 2011-12, a Special Leave Petition7 was dismissed by a two judge Bench of this Court on 16 July 2018 with the following observations: “Heard learned counsel for the parties. Delay condoned

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

Delay condoned in SLP(C) Dy. No. 30718 of 2023 and all connected petitions. 2. Special leave granted. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the appeals were heard. 3. In this batch of appeals the revenue questions four sets of orders of the Delhi High Court, dismissing its appeals under 1 Digitally signed by NEETA SAPRA

COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, SHIMLA vs. M/S. AMBUJA DARLA KARSOG MANGU T.C.S.LTD

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

C.A. No.-000820-000820 - 2008Supreme Court25 Jan 2008

Bench: Us A Copy Of The Order Passed By A Bench Of This Court In Commr. Of Income Tax,Shimla Vs. M/S Sirmour Truck Operators Union, Gondpr \026 Civil Appeal No. 5845/2007 Stating As Under: " Delay Condoned. Leave Granted. M/S Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. Entered Into A Contract With M/S Sirmour Truck Operators Union, The Respondent Herein. Respondent Assessee Is A Society. Its Members Consist Of Truck Operators. The Question Which Arose Before The High Court In The Income Tax Appeals Under Section 260A Was Whether Assessee Was Liable Or Not Liable To Deduct Tds Under Section 194 C Of The Income Tax Act. -1- In Our View, The Afore-Stated Question Is A Substantial Question Of Law. The High Court Ought To Have Decided The Said Question. It Ought Not To Have Dismissed The Appeals Summarily.

For Respondent: M/s Ambuja Darla Karsog Mangu Transport Cooperative Society Ltd
Section 194Section 260A

Delay condoned. Leave granted. M/s Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. entered into a contract with M/s Sirmour Truck Operators Union, the respondent herein. Respondent assessee is a society. Its members consist of truck operators. The question which arose before the High Court in the Income Tax Appeals under Section 260A

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

Delay 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

JT. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, GUJARAT vs. UNITED PHOSPHOROUS LTD., GUJARAT

Appeal is partly allowed with no order as to cost

C.A. No.-001183-001183 - 2008Supreme Court08 Feb 2008
For Respondent: M/s. United Phosphorous Ltd
Section 260ASection 32(1)Section 34(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

Delay condoned. 2. Leave granted. 3. In this civil appeal filed by the Department two questions of law arise for determination which questions are as follow: (1) Whether interest paid in respect of borrowings on capital assets not put to use in the concerned financial year can be permitted as allowable deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income

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

M/S TOPMAN EXPORTS vs. COMMR OF INCOME TAX,MUMBAI

C.A. No.-001699-001699 - 2012Supreme Court08 Feb 2012

Delay condoned. Leave granted in Special Leave Petitions. 2. These are appeals by way of special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution against the judgment and orders of the Bombay High Court holding that the entire amount received by an assessee on sale of the Duty Entitlement Pass Book (for short ‘the DEPB’) represents profit on transfer of DEPB