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.

23 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 50clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai886Chennai802Delhi696Kolkata528Bangalore343Ahmedabad280Hyderabad280Jaipur234Pune205Chandigarh184Karnataka183Surat149Nagpur106Amritsar91Visakhapatnam85Indore84Raipur81Lucknow80Rajkot78Calcutta45Cuttack40Patna36Cochin35SC26Telangana23Jodhpur19Agra18Varanasi17Panaji14Guwahati13Allahabad12Jabalpur12Dehradun7Orissa5Rajasthan5Ranchi4Himachal Pradesh2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Andhra Pradesh1Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 260A7Condonation of Delay6Search & Seizure5Section 2604Section 143(1)(a)4Section 214Section 158B4Addition to Income4Section 151

Commissioner of Income Tax- IT and TP vs. M/s. Louis Berger International Inc.,

ITTA/108/2022HC Telangana25 Sept 2023

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

50 of 137 of the declared value on ―certain reasons‖ which could include the grounds specified in sub-clauses (a) to (f) in clause (iii) of the Explanation. 16.7. The proper officer, on a request made by the importer, has to furnish and intimate to the importer in writing the grounds for doubting the truth or accuracy of the value

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. M/s. Andhra Pradesh Mineral Development Corporation Ltd.

ITTA/94/2022HC Telangana24 Aug 2023

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

50 of 137 of the declared value on ―certain reasons‖ which could include the grounds specified in sub-clauses (a) to (f) in clause (iii) of the Explanation. 16.7. The proper officer, on a request made by the importer, has to furnish and intimate to the importer in writing the grounds for doubting the truth or accuracy of the value

Showing 1–20 of 23 · Page 1 of 2

3
Section 1543
Exemption3
Section 1732

The Commissioner of Income Tax- IV vs. M/s. Prabhat Agri Bio Tech P Ltd.

ITTA/459/2015HC Telangana06 Apr 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 151Section 5Section 8

Section 151 CPC for impleadment of Induslnd Bank Ltd. as necessary party) M/S B GHOSE & COMPANY PVT LTD .....Appellant Through: None Versus SATISH MATHUR & ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Vidur Kamra, Advocate for respondent No.1 + RFA 283/2020, CM APPLs.30147/2020 (by the appellant u/S 151 CPC for stay) & 30149/2020 (by the appellant u/S 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay

The Commissioner of Income TAx-IV, vs. M/s. Mahaveer Enterprises (India) Limited

The Appeal is dismissed

ITTA/94/2008HC Telangana23 Mar 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 21

condonation of delay and that exercise of discretion in favour of the Appellants is untenable. The Tribunal also discussed merits of the case and dismissed the appeal on merits following Full Bench decision of Gujarat High Court. 24. The observations made by the learned Single Judge in the said judgement (Coram: A.P. Ravani, J.) about Section 10(3) declaration vesting

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Smt. Raj Kumari

Accordingly are partly allowed

ITTA/23/2008HC Telangana28 Mar 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

condone delay of 20 years and same had been dismissed. Alongside making some observations in the given facts and circumstances of that matter, would hardly be able to hold the facts and circumstances of the present case. 48. Hasan Bin Salam V. Madhavrao (supra) was a case wherein the respondent had been declared as owner under section 38E and that

SLS Developers vs. The Income Tax Officer

ITTA/5/2026HC Telangana29 Jan 2026

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

For Appellant: Sri A V Raghu RamFor Respondent: Ms. B Sapan Reddy, Senior Standing Counsel
Section 260

50 | 218. Rep by its Partner, Sri Neerati Raju Mudiraj. Petitioner AND The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3(1), Signature Towers, Opp. Botanical Gardens, Konadpur, Hyderabad - 500 084. Respondent ORDER.: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy) Ht:ard Mr.A.V.Raghu Ram, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.B.Sapna Reddy, learned senior standing counsel representing Ms.J.Sunitha, learned senior standing counsel

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. The Sind Coop. Urban Bank Ltd.,

The appeal of the State is allowed and the appeal of the applicants

ITTA/24/2011HC Telangana07 Jun 2011

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

section (3) is concerned, the owner should be holding the property under a registered deed, with intention to cultivate the same and his total holdings should be within the ceiling limits of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. Definitely, the principal cultivation as required for an exclusion, or personal cultivation under S.3(2) and an intention to cultivate under

THE COMMISSIONER OF I.T.-I, HYDERABAD. vs. M/S. AKASH CABLE TV NETWORK PVT.LTD., HYDERABAD.

ITTA/253/2012HC Telangana18 Feb 2025

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

Section 260A

50 days in refiling the present appeals. Ld. counsel for the respondent waives right to file reply and submits that the application may be disposed of on merits. It is stated in the application that the clerk of the counsel had misplaced the file and therefore, he took time to rectify the defects. For the reasons stated in the application

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV, vs. Parnika Constructions P. Ltd.,

Appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms

ITTA/73/2014HC Telangana01 Jul 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

delay of 66 days in preferring the appeal is condoned as no counter affidavit has been filed by the Insurance Company and the reason assigned by the appellants is acceptable to the court. Accordingly I.A. No. 602 of 2021 is allowed. M.A. No. 73 of 2014 1. Heard, learned counsel for the parties. -2- 2. The instant Miscellaneous Appeal

The Commissioner of Income Tax [Central] vs. Smt P Sujana

The appeal stands disposed of as indicated above

ITTA/280/2015HC Telangana16 Jul 2015

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 260Section 260A

delay of one day in filing the return ought to have been condoned and no powers under Section 154 of the Act would have been invoked. Referring to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of T.S. Balaram, - 7 - ITO vs. Volkart Brothers reported in (1971) 82 ITR 50

The Commissioner of Income Tax-V, vs. Sri. P.Krishna

ITTA/301/2010HC Telangana22 Mar 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 15Section 151Section 173

Section 15'1 of C P.C., praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in suppo( of the petition, the High Court may be pleased vacate the interim stay order, passed in MACMAMP No.7551/2008,in MACMASR No.30621/2008 dated'14. 1 1.2008. Counsel for the Appellant :SRl. T.RAMULU Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : ANNAPURNA SREERAM Counsel forthe Respondent No.2

The Commissioner of Income Tax-I, vs. Prasad Film Laboratories Limited,

ITTA/275/2012HC Telangana10 Jul 2013

condoned.  Otherwise also, the minor age of helpless claimant  in these appeals is certainly a sufficient cause for delay in filing  Cross­objections.  Therefore, Civil Application No. 14171 of 2017  and Civil Application No. 2757 of 2018 are disposed of as allowed  and Cross­objections filed by claimant are taken on record. 16. After hearing both the sides, following points arise

Commissioner of Income TAx-II, Visakhapatnam. vs. Pentakota Nageswara Rao

ITTA/511/2011HC Telangana08 Aug 2013
Section 132

condonation of delay) UNION OF INDIA THR. ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE ..... Appellant Versus GAURI SHANKAR AND ORS. …Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioners: Mr Rahul Chaudhary, Sr. Standing Counsel for ITD Mr Rakesh Kumar, CGSC For the Respondents: Mr Rakesh Gupta, Ms Poonam Ahuja, Mr Somil Agarwal, Mr Rohit Kumar Gupta and Ms Monika Ghai, Advocates Mr Akshay

The Commissioner of Income Tax-3 vs. M/s. Rockwell Collins (India) Enterprises PVt. Ltd.,

The appeal is disposed of

ITTA/27/2015HC Telangana15 Jun 2015

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 158BSection 246ASection 249(4)Section 249(4)(a)Section 260A

50 YEARS, NO.7, 1ST FLOOR, 32ND CROSS, KILARI ROAD, BENGALURU-560053. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. S.PARTHASARATHI, ADVOCATE along with SMT. JINITA CHATTERJEE, ADVOCATE ) AND: THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(INVESTIGATION), CIRCLE-2(1), BENGALURU. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. E.I.SANMATHI, SENIOR STANDING COUNSEL) THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED

Commissioner of Income tax-V, vs. Sri Ravinder Singh Arora (PAN ABQPA4166N)

The appeals are dismissed and the pending cross objections are disposed

ITTA/367/2013HC Telangana27 Aug 2013
Section 153Section 153C

delay of 50 days in re-filing the appeals is condoned. ITA Nos. 365, 366, 367, 368, 371 & 372 of2013 Page of 6 2. The applications are disposed of ITA No.365/2013 ITA No.366/2013 & CM No.23640/2015 ITA No.367/2013 & CM No.23644/2015 ITA 368/2013 & CM No.23646/2015 ITA No.371/2013 & ITA No.372/2013 & CM No.23642/2015 3. The question framed in the present appeals by the order

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri Chirla Rama Reddy

ITTA/798/2006HC Telangana28 Mar 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 260A

Delay condoned. Date of order: 30-7-2018 I.T.A. No.798/2006 The Commissioner of Income-Tax & Anr. vs. Sri K.Gopal 5/22 Liberty is given to the Department to move the High Court pointing out that the Circular dated February 9, 2011 should not be applied ipso facto, particularly, when the matter has a cascading effect. There are cases under the Income

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/s.Voith Turbo Pvt Ltd

ITTA/168/2006HC Telangana17 Feb 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 260A

Delay condoned. Date of order: 30-7-2018 I.T.A. No.168/2006 The Commissioner of Income-Tax & Anr. vs. Sri Anil Kabra 5/22 Liberty is given to the Department to move the High Court pointing out that the Circular dated February 9, 2011 should not be applied ipso facto, particularly, when the matter has a cascading effect. There are cases under

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I, vs. M/s. V.Dhana Reddy AND Co.,

ITTA/137/2017HC Telangana14 Nov 2017

Bench: C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

For Appellant: - National Insurance Co. Ltd. Lucknow Thru. AssttFor Respondent: - Gaurav Sharma And Anr
Section 163Section 166Section 173

condonation of delay under a wrong provision of law will not vitiate the application. 18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Pankajbhai Rameshbhai Zalavadiya Vs. Jethabhai Kalabhai Zalavadiya; (2017) 9 SCC 700, has held that it is by now well settled that a mere wrong mention of the provision in the application would not prohibit a party

Commissioner of Income Tax-2, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITTA/407/2011HC Telangana17 Nov 2011

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,SANJAY KUMAR

Section 271(1)(c)

delay of 32 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. Main cases This order shall dispose of two income tax appeals i.e. ITA No. 407 of 2011 and ITA No. 33 of 2012 as the issue involved in both the DIVYANSHI 2023.03.03 14:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/order

EVEREST ORGANICS LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF I.T., HYDERABAD

ITTA/9/2005HC Telangana21 Sept 2022

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

Section 143(1)(a)

50 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters carry out the work of drafting of assessment orders in the case of Shri S.K.Jain on holidays i.e. 30.3.96, 31.3.96 and 1.4.96, which are required to be drafted with the guidance of DI, DG and Addl.DIT as they would approve the assessment orders to be framed. In this connection, the CIT, Jabalpur