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.

183 results for “condonation of delay”+ Reassessmentclear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai639Delhi546Mumbai494Kolkata387Ahmedabad248Bangalore183Jaipur164Hyderabad147Pune141Raipur129Surat88Chandigarh85Amritsar84Cuttack82Indore73Patna55Rajkot42Visakhapatnam41Nagpur40Cochin39Lucknow38Karnataka19Agra16Guwahati13Dehradun13Panaji12Telangana11SC9Jodhpur8Calcutta8Varanasi8Allahabad6Jabalpur5Ranchi5Orissa4Himachal Pradesh2

Key Topics

Section 14870Addition to Income61Section 14760Section 14A47Section 153A41Section 143(3)39Section 143(2)35Section 25032Condonation of Delay

BIJU PAPPACHAN,KERALA vs. AO, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2153/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Ms. Akshatha Prasad, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ganesh R Ghale, D.R
Section 250

condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, we proceed to adjudicate the issues involved in the present appeal instead of remitting the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for consideration. 8. On going through the reassessment

WELCOME TRADERS,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1264/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: Disposed

Showing 1–20 of 183 · Page 1 of 10

...
32
Disallowance29
Section 14427
Limitation/Time-bar27
ITAT Bangalore
23 Sept 2024
AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Akshaya, CAFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 249(3)Section 37

condoning the delay which were not accepted by the CIT(Appeals) observing that the appeal of the assessee is not filed as per section 249(3) of the Act and without going into the merits of the case, he dismissed the appeal of the assessee as not maintainable. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the ITAT

ASST. CIT, BANGALORE vs. SRI. M.R. SEETHARAMA (INDL), BANGALORE

In the result, both Revenue’s appeal and the assessee's C

ITA 926/BANG/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Respondent: Shri Anurag Sahay, CIT-III (D.R)
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

condone the delay of 4 days in filing the C.O. and admit the C.O. for adjudication. 7.0 The Revenue’s appeal and the assessee's C.O. are taken up together for disposal. 7.1 We have heard the rival contentions of both the learned Departmental Representative for Revenue and the learned Authorised Representative for the assessee. The learned Departmental Representative contended

SRI. M. NAGARAJA,MYSORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 2(1), MYSORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1905/BANG/2019[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Sept 2022AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 1999-2000

For Respondent: Shri S. Parthasarathi
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 234BSection 263

condonation of delay of 2111 days. The entire premise of the assessee is that there is no delay in filing the present appeal as appearing from the following para which forms part of the submission filed by the Ld.AR dated 30/07/2022. “11. However, on account of monetary limits, the Department's appeal stood dismissed vide order dated

UBMC TRUST ASSOCIATION,UDUPI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS WARD-1, MANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee stands allowed on the legal issue raised in the additional ground

ITA 693/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri Ravi Shankar .S.V
Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 234ASection 250

delay of 6 days is condoned in both the appeals. 5. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee has filed an application for admission of additional ground that reads as under: “a. The notice issued under section 148 of the Act is bad in law. b. The learned assessing officer was not justified in issuing a notice under section

UBMC TRUST ASSOCIATION,UDUPI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS WARD-1, MANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee stands allowed on the legal issue raised in the additional ground

ITA 694/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri Ravi Shankar .S.V
Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 234ASection 250

delay of 6 days is condoned in both the appeals. 5. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee has filed an application for admission of additional ground that reads as under: “a. The notice issued under section 148 of the Act is bad in law. b. The learned assessing officer was not justified in issuing a notice under section

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE,CHAMARAJANAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHAMARAJANAGAR

In the result Appeals of the Assessee are allowed and stay petitions are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 2808/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Apr 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sounadararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Balusamy. N – JCIT & Shri Raghu, ITO
Section 10Section 147Section 148

delay be condoned and the Appeal be heard on its merits. 16. For the Assessment Year 2015-16 under review, the Authorised Representative, Shri Ravi Shankar, Advocate, submitted a paper book comprising twenty-three pages. Reference was made to the first page, containing a letter dated 10.12.2025 from the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Chamarajanagar, addressed to the Secretary

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITEE,CHAMARAJANAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHAMARAJNAGAR

In the result Appeals of the Assessee are allowed and stay petitions are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 2805/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Apr 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sounadararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Balusamy. N – JCIT & Shri Raghu, ITO
Section 10Section 147Section 148

delay be condoned and the Appeal be heard on its merits. 16. For the Assessment Year 2015-16 under review, the Authorised Representative, Shri Ravi Shankar, Advocate, submitted a paper book comprising twenty-three pages. Reference was made to the first page, containing a letter dated 10.12.2025 from the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Chamarajanagar, addressed to the Secretary

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE,CHAMARAJNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHAMARAJNAGAR

In the result Appeals of the Assessee are allowed and stay petitions are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 2806/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Apr 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sounadararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Balusamy. N – JCIT & Shri Raghu, ITO
Section 10Section 147Section 148

delay be condoned and the Appeal be heard on its merits. 16. For the Assessment Year 2015-16 under review, the Authorised Representative, Shri Ravi Shankar, Advocate, submitted a paper book comprising twenty-three pages. Reference was made to the first page, containing a letter dated 10.12.2025 from the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Chamarajanagar, addressed to the Secretary

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE,CHAMARAJNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHAMARAJNAGAR

In the result Appeals of the Assessee are allowed and stay petitions are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 2807/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Apr 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sounadararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Balusamy. N – JCIT & Shri Raghu, ITO
Section 10Section 147Section 148

delay be condoned and the Appeal be heard on its merits. 16. For the Assessment Year 2015-16 under review, the Authorised Representative, Shri Ravi Shankar, Advocate, submitted a paper book comprising twenty-three pages. Reference was made to the first page, containing a letter dated 10.12.2025 from the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Chamarajanagar, addressed to the Secretary

IRENE PEREIRA ,UDUPI vs. ITO WARD- 1&TPS, UDUPI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2273/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Sri. Ravindra Poojary, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri. V. Parithivel, JCIT
Section 147Section 148ASection 249(2)Section 250Section 69

condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Further, we also take a note of the fact that the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC on the one hand as observed in Para-4 of his Order that no reason has been made during the appellate proceeding for the delayed filing of appeal and on the other hand in para

KARNATAKA CHINMAYA SEVA TRUST,BENGALURU vs. DCIT-(EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1267/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear:2016-17

For Appellant: Sri N. Suresh, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R
Section 250Section 253(5)

condoning the short delay of 41 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal and admit the same for adjudication. 7. Now coming to the brief facts of the case are that the assessee Trust e-filed its return of income for the assessment year 2016-17 belatedly u/s 139(4) of the Act on 18.1.2018 declaring nil income after

SMT. VISHALAKSHI DEVI,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(4), BENGALURU

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2795/BANG/2017[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Mar 2018AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Padma Meenakshi, JCIT(DR)
Section 144Section 148Section 234A

reassessment requires to be cancelled on the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. The learned Assessing Officer was not justified in law in completing the assessment ex-parte under section 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. The learned Assessing Officer was erred in making an addition

SMT. VISHALAKSHI DEVI,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(4), BENGALURU

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2796/BANG/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Mar 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Padma Meenakshi, JCIT(DR)
Section 144Section 148Section 234A

reassessment requires to be cancelled on the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. The learned Assessing Officer was not justified in law in completing the assessment ex-parte under section 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. The learned Assessing Officer was erred in making an addition

SMT. VISHALAKSHI DEVI,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(4), BENGALURU

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2797/BANG/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Mar 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Padma Meenakshi, JCIT(DR)
Section 144Section 148Section 234A

reassessment requires to be cancelled on the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. The learned Assessing Officer was not justified in law in completing the assessment ex-parte under section 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. The learned Assessing Officer was erred in making an addition

M/S AUTOLIV INDIA PRIAVTE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal numbered as ITA 593/B/2018 is treated as allowed and other appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 593/BANG/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Feb 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan, Vice Presidnet & Shri B.R Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri S Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Sowmya Aacharya, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)

condone the delay on the reasoning that there was no compelling reason for the delay. Aggrieved the assessee has filed appeal before us. 3. The assessing officer re-opened the assessment of the year under consideration and completed the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 15.02.2013, wherein he again made the addition relating to “Product Development

VSL STEELS LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1492/BANG/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Dec 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Assessment Year : 2005 – 06 M/S Vsl Steels Limited, No. 539, Ashwini Complex, 4Th Floor, Cmh Road, Indiranagar, Hal 2Nd Vs. Dcit, Circle – 2 (3), Stage, Bengaluru Bengaluru – 560038 Pan: Aaics1510N Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2005 – 06 M/S Vsl Steels Limited, No. 539, Ashwini Complex, 4Th Floor, Cmh Road, Indiranagar, Hal 2Nd Vs. Pcit – 7, Stage, Bengaluru Bengaluru – 560038 Pan: Aaics1510N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri S. Ramasubramanian, C. A. Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.11.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.12.2019

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, C. AFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT DR
Section 147Section 153C

condone the delay in filing the appeal before CIT (A) and restore the matter back to his file for a decision on merit after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to both sides. In view of this decision, no adjudication on merit is called for at the present stage and we make no comment on merit. 6. In the result

VSL STEELS LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. PR. CI.T., BANGALORE

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 735/BANG/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Dec 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Assessment Year : 2005 – 06 M/S Vsl Steels Limited, No. 539, Ashwini Complex, 4Th Floor, Cmh Road, Indiranagar, Hal 2Nd Vs. Dcit, Circle – 2 (3), Stage, Bengaluru Bengaluru – 560038 Pan: Aaics1510N Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2005 – 06 M/S Vsl Steels Limited, No. 539, Ashwini Complex, 4Th Floor, Cmh Road, Indiranagar, Hal 2Nd Vs. Pcit – 7, Stage, Bengaluru Bengaluru – 560038 Pan: Aaics1510N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri S. Ramasubramanian, C. A. Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.11.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.12.2019

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, C. AFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT DR
Section 147Section 153C

condone the delay in filing the appeal before CIT (A) and restore the matter back to his file for a decision on merit after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to both sides. In view of this decision, no adjudication on merit is called for at the present stage and we make no comment on merit. 6. In the result

M/S. CANARA BANK (ERSTWHILE SYNDICATE BANK),BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by assessee and revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 391/BANG/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Dec 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 51

delay in filing the present appeal by the revenue stands condoned. Assessee’s appeal (ITA 392) 6. The Ld. AR submitted that Ground No.1 is general in nature and does not require adjudication. 7. He submitted that Ground No.2 is challenging validity of assessment order as it was not served on the assessee within time limits specified in section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. CANARA BANK, BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by assessee and revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 663/BANG/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Dec 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 51

delay in filing the present appeal by the revenue stands condoned. Assessee’s appeal (ITA 392) 6. The Ld. AR submitted that Ground No.1 is general in nature and does not require adjudication. 7. He submitted that Ground No.2 is challenging validity of assessment order as it was not served on the assessee within time limits specified in section