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.

11 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 92clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai376Chennai313Delhi220Kolkata189Ahmedabad152Bangalore127Karnataka125Jaipur112Chandigarh96Hyderabad95Pune84Calcutta41Indore39Surat33Visakhapatnam28Nagpur25Rajkot22Guwahati19Patna19Lucknow18Amritsar17SC11Cuttack11Cochin11Telangana8Raipur6Allahabad6Agra4Rajasthan4Jabalpur3Dehradun3Orissa2Varanasi2Jodhpur1Andhra Pradesh1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Panaji1Ranchi1

Key Topics

Section 43(6)(b)5Section 143(2)2Deduction2Addition to Income2Capital Gains2

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S PEPSI FOODS LTD. (NOW PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.)

C.A. No.-001106-001106 - 2021Supreme Court06 Apr 2021

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

Section 254

Delay condoned. Leave granted. 2. The appeals before us raise an important question as to the constitutional validity of the third proviso to Section 254(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “Income Tax Act”). 3. The facts in Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. v. M/s Pepsi Foods Ltd. [now Pepsico India Holdings

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

Delay Condoned. Leave granted. 2. This appeal when alongwith several appeals were heard on 16.11.2016, this Court noticed that in batch of cases, four questions have arisen.   The present batch of cases of which Civil   Appeal   No.   2165   is   a   leading   case   relates   only   to Question No.2, which is to the following effect:­ “Whether   sub­section   (2)   and   sub­section

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

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

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

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 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

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

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

M/S OSWAL PETROCHEMICALS LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE MUMBAI II

Appeals are allowed in the following

C.A. No.-000129-000130 - 2011Supreme Court28 Apr 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN

Section 35L

condoned the delay in filing of the appeals and had issued notice. 6. Relevant facts may be briefly noted. 7. Appellant is a manufacturer of excisable goods falling under Chapters 27, 28, 29, 32, 38 and 39 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (briefly ‘the Tariff Act’ hereinafter) 8. Appellant had filed classification list bearing No. 1/89-90 effective from