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.

15 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 73clear

Sorted by relevance

Patna482Mumbai234Chennai204Delhi129Chandigarh116Kolkata115Bangalore108Ahmedabad105Jaipur89Pune63Hyderabad60Amritsar46Visakhapatnam40Indore36Surat31Lucknow22Cochin21Rajkot19Dehradun19SC15Nagpur15Guwahati14Panaji12Raipur12Cuttack10Agra7Jabalpur3Varanasi3Allahabad2Jodhpur2A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1

Key Topics

Section 276C9Section 1486Penalty5Section 353Section 35H3Section 733Section 2763Section 139(1)3Limitation/Time-bar3Section 5

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS & CENTRAL EXCISE vs. M/S HONGO INDIA(P) LTD

C.A. No.-001939-001939 - 2009Supreme Court27 Mar 2009

Bench: Enactment Of Act 49/2005), With Regard To Application For Reference, The High Court Exercises Its Advisory Jurisdiction In A Case Where The Substantial Question Of Law Of Public Importance Arise, The Said Bench Directed The Matter To Be Heard By Larger Bench. In This Way, All The Above Mentioned Matters Arising From The Judgments Of The Allahabad High Court On Identical Issue Posted Before This Bench For Determining The Question, Namely, “Whether The High Court In The Reference Application Under Section 35H (1) Of The Unamended Act, Has Power Under Section 5 Of 2

Section 2Section 35Section 35BSection 35CSection 35ESection 35GSection 35HSection 5

73, expressed doubt about the said judgment with regard to the jurisdiction of the High Court in the matter of condoning delay beyond the prescribed period under the Act. After finding that under Section

2
Capital Gains2
Revision u/s 2632

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

PRAKASH NATH KHANNA vs. COMMNR OF INCOME TAX

Crl.A. No.-001260-001261 - 1997Supreme Court16 Feb 2004
For Respondent: Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(a)Section 276Section 276C

delay in filing a return without contumacious conduct and mens rea being established could not make the petitioner liable for prosecution. 6. Petitioner having been subjected to levy of interest under Section 139(1) and also to penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(a) of the Act, could not further be prosecuted for the same defaults. Per contra, learned counsel

COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, VADODARA-I vs. M/S. GUJARAT CARBON & INDUSTRIES LTD

C.A. No.-001618-001618 - 2005Supreme Court18 Aug 2008
Section 117Section 70Section 71Section 73Section 84

condoned. Appeal Admitted. 2. In these appeals common points are involved and therefore they are disposed of by this common judgment. 3. Challenge in each case is to the judgment of various Benches of Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short ‘CESTAT’). The respondents in each case had engaged the services of transport operators. They were in other words

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

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

VINUBHAI MOHANLAL DOBARIA vs. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms

C.A. No.-001977-001977 - 2025Supreme Court07 Feb 2025

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

Section 143(1)Section 276C

condonation of the said infraction, even if a return is filed in terms of sub- section (4). Accepting such a plea would mean that a person who has not filed a return within the due time as prescribed under sub-section (1) or (2) of Section 139 would get benefit by filing the return under Section 139(4) much later

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 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

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) 2 vs. M/S MAHAGUN REALTORS (P) LTD

The appeal is allowed, in the above terms, without order on costs

C.A. No.-002716-002716 - 2022Supreme Court05 Apr 2022

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 276C

Delay condoned. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the parties. We do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment(s) [Spice Entertainment Ltd. v. Commr. of Service Tax, (2011 SCC OnLine Del); CIT v. Dimension Apparels (P) Ltd., (2015) 370 ITR 288; CIT v. Chanakaya Exports (P) Ltd., 2014 SCC OnLine Del 7678; CIT v. Chanakaya

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

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

M/S. ROTORK CONTROLA INDIA (P) LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI

Appeals stand allowed in favour of the assessee with no order as to

C.A. No.-003506-003510 - 2009Supreme Court12 May 2009
Section 37

Delay condoned. 2. Leave granted. FACTS IN THE LEAD MATTER Civil Appeal Nos. of 2009 – Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos.14178-14182 of 2007 – M/s. Rotork Controls India (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai . 3. In these civil appeals filed by the assessee we are concerned with the assessment years

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE vs. M/S. MADHAN AGRO INDUSTRIES (I) PVT. LTD

C.A. No.-001766-001766 - 2009Supreme Court13 Apr 2018

Bench: Us.

Section Note 2 to Section VI, no other classification is permissible. By consideration of the materials placed on record and also applying the 'Common Parlance Test', coconut oil packed in small sachets/containers 67 understood in the market by dealers/consumers as 'Hair Oil' is classifiable under Chapter 33, tariff item 33 05. In the case of MAIPL, 'Coconut Oil' packed

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE ETC. vs. M/S.AISHWARYA INDUSTRIES THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR ETC

C.A. No.-006703-006710 - 2009Supreme Court13 Apr 2018

Bench: Us.

Section Note 2 to Section VI, no other classification is permissible. By consideration of the materials placed on record and also applying the 'Common Parlance Test', coconut oil packed in small sachets/containers 67 understood in the market by dealers/consumers as 'Hair Oil' is classifiable under Chapter 33, tariff item 33 05. In the case of MAIPL, 'Coconut Oil' packed