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.

156 results for “condonation of delay”+ Rectification u/s 154clear

Sorted by relevance

Patna468Delhi270Mumbai234Pune223Chennai158Bangalore156Kolkata103Ahmedabad79Hyderabad67Jaipur58Chandigarh56Nagpur38Indore33Lucknow30Cochin29Visakhapatnam24Karnataka23Surat21Amritsar18Jodhpur17Raipur16Agra13Guwahati12Rajkot11Allahabad9Jabalpur8Cuttack6Dehradun4Panaji3SC2Telangana2Varanasi2Orissa1

Key Topics

Section 154177Section 143(1)111Rectification u/s 15458Section 234E56Deduction50Section 20045Addition to Income39Section 26332Limitation/Time-bar

M/S. SJS ENTERPRISES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 972/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year:2017-18

For Appellant: Sri Rony Anthony, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234B

condonation of delay and therefore was unjustified in rejecting the appeal. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) was unreasonable and grossly erred by not considering the merits of the case before rejecting the appeal. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that intimation under section 143(1) of the Act [rectification order under section 154 of the Act dated

Showing 1–20 of 156 · Page 1 of 8

...
32
Section 200A30
Disallowance30
Section 143(3)29

NAVODAYA EDUCATION TRUST,RAICHUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELLARY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 49/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jul 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Kaul, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. Devarathna Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 139Section 143(1)Section 154

154 or not. Scope of rectification is limited to correcting error of fact or error of law, on the basis of material available on record. In the appeal under consideration the appellant has sought rectification on issues which will require fresh investigations of facts. The appellant has tried to use appeal against rejection of rectification application as a method

SMT. SHILPA GOPALA REDDY,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3(3)(4), BANGALORE

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

ITA 2072/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Sri.Venkatesh KumarFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Council for DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 246ASection 249(3)

condonation of delay Synopsis Date Events 27.12.2016 Assessment order passed u/s 143(3) 09.06.2017 Rectification petition u/s 154 filed. 08.11.2017 Application

M/S. SREE MINERALS,BELLARY vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, BELLARY

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed in limine

ITA 719/BANG/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 May 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, D.R
Section 143Section 143(3)

154 of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short]. Though the said order was served to the assessee on 29.2.2012, the assessee filed appeal before CIT(A) on 27.4.2012. The CIT(A) not condoned the delay in filing the appeal before him on the reason that assessee not adduced any credible reason for delay in filing appeal before

M/S. PRESTIGE ESTATES PROJECTS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 68/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Sudheendra B.R., AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.A.Sreenivasa Rao, CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 154Section 3(1)(b)

u/s 154 of the I.T.Act. The assessee immediately on receipt of the said order (received by the assessee on 01.02.2019) filed a rectification application on 14.03.2019 requesting rectification of the said order. However, the said application of the assessee was rejected vide order dated 28.05.2020. Reckoning the date of rejection of the rectification application, i.e., 28.05.2020, there is no delay

M/S. PRESTIGE ESTATES PROJECTS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 67/BANG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Sudheendra B.R., AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.A.Sreenivasa Rao, CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 154Section 3(1)(b)

u/s 154 of the I.T.Act. The assessee immediately on receipt of the said order (received by the assessee on 01.02.2019) filed a rectification application on 14.03.2019 requesting rectification of the said order. However, the said application of the assessee was rejected vide order dated 28.05.2020. Reckoning the date of rejection of the rectification application, i.e., 28.05.2020, there is no delay

INDIRA VELURI,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2513/BANG/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Apr 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Sri Pavan Kumar, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ganesh R Gale, Standing counsel for department
Section 250Section 253(5)

rectification application u/s 154 of the Act on 26.12.2022 by declaring the same total income Rs.27,48,790/- along with Form 67 for claiming foreign tax credit but the AO CPC had denied the foreign tax credit of Rs.6,62,622/- claimed. 7.1 However, aggrieved by the intimation passed u/s 143(1) of the Act, the assessee preferred an appeal

COREGEO TECH (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1626/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar S.V., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 40

rectification application u/s 154 and order was passed on 07.02.2022. The assesse filed first appeal on 14.06.2023 with delay. The ld. CIT(Appeals) has not decided the issue on merits of the case and only dismissed the appeal without condoning

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SHRI MUNI REDDY SANTHOSH REDDY, BENGALURU

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

ITA 1009/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for RevenueFor Respondent: N o n e
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 54Section 54F

rectification order passed u/s 154 of the Act on 11.10.2017. However, the ld. CIT(A) decided the issue cropped up in the order passed u/s 154 of the Act while adjudicating the appeal against the order passed by AO u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 14.12.2016 without calling for the remand report from the AO. Thus, he submitted that

SHRI. BASAVESWAR CREDIT CO-OP SOCIETY LIMITED ,HUNDUND vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, , BAGALKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as not maintainable

ITA 673/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, S.V., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234ASection 250Section 8o

condone the delay of 2995 days in filing the appeal. The reasons for not filing appeal within time is very much casual and not explained with reasonable cause. The assessee itself accepted that even the rectification application u/s. 154

ARYA VYSYA SANGHA,CHITRADURGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, HUBLI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1269/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep, CAFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(1)

rectification u/s 154 or may appeal before the FAA. But, here the assessee filed appeal with delay which is not reasonable cause. 8. Considering the rival submissions, the ld. FAA has dismissed the appeal of the assessee by not considering the reasons of the assessee for condoning

ARYA VYSYA SANGHA,CHITRADURGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, HUBLI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1270/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep, CAFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(1)

rectification u/s 154 or may appeal before the FAA. But, here the assessee filed appeal with delay which is not reasonable cause. 8. Considering the rival submissions, the ld. FAA has dismissed the appeal of the assessee by not considering the reasons of the assessee for condoning

M/S KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE APEX BANK EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CPC) , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal numbered as ITA 461/Bang/2019 is treated as allowed and the other appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 461/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judical Member Ita Nos.461 & 462(Bang)/2019 (Assessment Years : 2011-12) Karnataka State Co-Operative Apex Bank Employees Co-Operative Society Ltd., No.1, Apex Bank Building, Pampa Mahakavu Road, Chamarajpet, Bangalore-560 018 Pan No.Aaaak2843E Appellant Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bangalore Respondent Appellant By : Shri C. Sandeep, Ca Respondent By : Shri R.N.Siddappajji, Addl.Cit

For Appellant: Shri C. Sandeep, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.N.Siddappajji, Addl.CIT
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 80P

rectification order passed u/s 154 of the Act. 4. Before Ld CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the appeal is delayed by 64 days. Though the Ld CIT(A) condoned

ANAND SWEETS & SAVOURIES,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

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

ITA 242/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rama Nathan R., Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 132Section 140ASection 143(1)Section 154

rectification application u/s. 154 filed by it and on advise an appeal was filed before the CIT(Appeals) which caused the delay and therefore the assessee was prevented from a sufficient cause in filing the appeal within time. It was therefore prayed that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(Appeals) be condoned

SRI SOWRABHA MAHILA PATTINA SAHAKARA SANGHA ,TUMKUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TIPTUR

The appeals are dismissed, however

ITA 117/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Ms. Sahana T.H.M, Advocate
Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80ASection 80P

condonation of delay in filing of the return of income, the Central Processing Centre is correct in not allowing the Assessee the deduction u/s. 80P of the Act as return of income is not filed within due date. The Ld. CIT(A) following the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in case of AA520 Veerappampalayam Primary Agricultural Cooperative

THE PAVAGADA SOUHARDA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE LIMTIED,KOLOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KOLAR

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

ITA 1960/BANG/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 249(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 8o

delay condonation application, the assessee submitted that they have filed a rectification petition on 21/07/2011 as against the intimation dated 17/03/2011 which was not accepted by the CPC vide order dated 03/08/2011. Thereafter on 05/09/2011, a petition u/s. 154

YUVA CHINTANA FOUNDATION,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS WARD 2, BENGALURU

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

ITA 301/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Anoop Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT-DR
Section 250Section 253(5)

condoning the delay of 110 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal and admit the same for adjudication. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee trust filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2021-22 on 07/02/2022 declaring net taxable income at Rs. Nil and accordingly claimed refund of Rs. 11,350/- along with

RAMPUR LAXAMANA NAIK RAVISHANKAR,TUMKUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , TIPTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2529/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18 Rampur Laxamana Naik Ravishankar Tulasi Nivasa 8Th Cross, Vidyanagara Tipturho, Tiptur Ito Vs. Tumkur 572 201 Ward 1 Karnataka Tiptur Pan No :Ajvpr7385P Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Gokul, A.R. Respondent By : Sri Subramanian S., D.R. Date Of Hearing : 23.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.07.2025

For Appellant: Sri Gokul, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian S., D.R
Section 154Section 250

delay was due to wrong professional advice wherein the assessee was advised to file a rectification application u/s 154 of the Act before the AO & not to file the statutory appeal.The assessee was pursuing the remedy u/s 154 of the Act. Upon failing to secure the remedy u/s 154 of the Rampur Laxamana Naik Ravishankar, Tumkur Page

SRI MANJUNATH DEVASTAN,GADAG vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal No

ITA 580/BANG/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Feb 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Smt. Mrinalini R., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing counsel for Dept
Section 143(1)Section 154

condoning the delay. We notice that the assessee has submitted before Ld. CIT(A). The explanation given by the assessee was that it was pursuing remedy by filing rectification petitions u/s 154

SRI MANJUNATH DEVASTAN,GADAG vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal No

ITA 579/BANG/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Feb 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Smt. Mrinalini R., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing counsel for Dept
Section 143(1)Section 154

condoning the delay. We notice that the assessee has submitted before Ld. CIT(A). The explanation given by the assessee was that it was pursuing remedy by filing rectification petitions u/s 154