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.

66 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 115clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai234Delhi230Mumbai161Karnataka123Kolkata69Bangalore66Hyderabad52Jaipur46Surat45Visakhapatnam40Calcutta38Amritsar32Chandigarh25Ahmedabad25Pune22Rajkot18Lucknow16Panaji16Cuttack16Indore15Varanasi14Guwahati12Jabalpur12Cochin9SC7Nagpur6Raipur6Patna5Allahabad5Jodhpur4Telangana3Punjab & Haryana1Orissa1Rajasthan1Himachal Pradesh1Andhra Pradesh1Agra1

Key Topics

Addition to Income48Section 14739Section 26334Section 14822Section 143(3)21Limitation/Time-bar19Section 11518Disallowance18Condonation of Delay

SHRI K.MEHFUZ ALI KHAN ,BELLARY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 921/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A. K. Garodia

For Appellant: Shri. Lakshmi Narayanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. V. Arvind, Sr. Standing Counsel for Department
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

Section 115 CPC failed to correct the jurisdictional error of the appellate court." 13. In the light of legal proposition laid down by the Apex Court, if we examine the fact of the case, we find that there is reasonable cause for the delay in filing of the appeal before the CIT(A) as he was in jail

SHRI K MEHFUZ ALI KHAN ,BELLARY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Showing 1–20 of 66 · Page 1 of 4

17
Section 80I15
Section 10(5)15
Section 143(1)13
ITA 922/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A. K. Garodia

For Appellant: Shri. Lakshmi Narayanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. V. Arvind, Sr. Standing Counsel for Department
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

Section 115 CPC failed to correct the jurisdictional error of the appellate court." 13. In the light of legal proposition laid down by the Apex Court, if we examine the fact of the case, we find that there is reasonable cause for the delay in filing of the appeal before the CIT(A) as he was in jail

SHRI K MEHFUZ ALI KHAN ,BELLARY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 920/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A. K. Garodia

For Appellant: Shri. Lakshmi Narayanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. V. Arvind, Sr. Standing Counsel for Department
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

Section 115 CPC failed to correct the jurisdictional error of the appellate court." 13. In the light of legal proposition laid down by the Apex Court, if we examine the fact of the case, we find that there is reasonable cause for the delay in filing of the appeal before the CIT(A) as he was in jail

SHRI K MEHFUZ ALI KHAN ,BELLARY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 923/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A. K. Garodia

For Appellant: Shri. Lakshmi Narayanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. V. Arvind, Sr. Standing Counsel for Department
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

Section 115 CPC failed to correct the jurisdictional error of the appellate court." 13. In the light of legal proposition laid down by the Apex Court, if we examine the fact of the case, we find that there is reasonable cause for the delay in filing of the appeal before the CIT(A) as he was in jail

SHRI K.MEHFUZ ALI KHAN ,BELLARY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 919/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A. K. Garodia

For Appellant: Shri. Lakshmi Narayanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. V. Arvind, Sr. Standing Counsel for Department
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

Section 115 CPC failed to correct the jurisdictional error of the appellate court." 13. In the light of legal proposition laid down by the Apex Court, if we examine the fact of the case, we find that there is reasonable cause for the delay in filing of the appeal before the CIT(A) as he was in jail

SHRI. BALAJI VIVIDODEESHAGALA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMITA,HAVERI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, HAVERI

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

ITA 827/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri Siddhesh Nagraj Gaddi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 80P

115. PAN – ABKAS 9046 C APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Siddhesh Nagraj Gaddi, AR Revenue by : Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department Date of hearing : 23.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 26.08.2025 O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the NFAC, Delhi vide order

M/S. CANDOR BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(1),, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2607/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Ravish Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri D. Kiran, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(ii)

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 7. Coming to the merits of the case, the assessee has raised lengthy grounds in this appeal which relates to disallowance of Rs.17 lakhs paid by the assessee as bonus to director shareholders of the assessee company u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 8. The ld. AR submitted that

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

M/S. INDIANOIL SKYTAKING PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 299/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 80Section 80I

115-O can be challenged under the clause “an order against the assessee where the assessee denies his liability to be assessed under this Act” mentioned in sec.246A(1)(a) as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court. The above said clause is a separate clause unconnected with the clause “any order of assessment under sub-section (3) of section

INDIANOIL SKYTANKING PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 407/BANG/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 80Section 80I

115-O can be challenged under the clause “an order against the assessee where the assessee denies his liability to be assessed under this Act” mentioned in sec.246A(1)(a) as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court. The above said clause is a separate clause unconnected with the clause “any order of assessment under sub-section (3) of section

M/S INDIANOIL SKYTANKING PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 583/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 80Section 80I

115-O can be challenged under the clause “an order against the assessee where the assessee denies his liability to be assessed under this Act” mentioned in sec.246A(1)(a) as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court. The above said clause is a separate clause unconnected with the clause “any order of assessment under sub-section (3) of section

M/S. GE BE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

ITA 2615/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George K. George

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly &For Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 92D

115-O can be challenged under the clause “an order against the assessee where the assessee denies his liability to be assessed under this Act” mentioned in sec.246A(1)(a) as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court. The above said clause is a separate clause unconnected with the clause “any order of assessment under sub-section (3) of section

GNANA SHALE SOUHARDHA CO-OPERATIVE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-6, BENGALURU

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

ITA 887/BANG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

For Appellant: Sri.S.V.Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Susan D George, CIT –DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 63

delay of 115 days in filing this appeal before the Tribunal is condoned and we proceed to dispose of the same on merits. 5. The grounds raised read as follows:- “1. The order passed by the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru-g, passed under section

RANI CHANNAMMA CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,HAVERI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, HAVERI

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

ITA 826/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri Siddhesh Nagraj Gaddi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate, Standing
Section 119(2)(b)Section 139Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 80ASection 80P

115. PAN – AAGAR 7512 P APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Siddhesh Nagraj Gaddi, AR Revenue by : Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel for Revenue Date of hearing : 23.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 23.07.2025 O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the NFAC, Delhi vide

ADDL/JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (LTU) , BANGALORE vs. M/S TEXAS INSTRUMENTS (INDIA) PVT LTD , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 525/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: FixedITAT Bangalore11 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 115Section 115QSection 143(3)Section 246A

115-O can be challenged under the clause “an order against the assessee where the assessee denies his liability to be assessed under this Act” mentioned in sec.246A(1)(a) as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court. The above said clause is a separate clause unconnected with the clause “any order of assessment under sub-section (3) of section

M/S TEXAS INSTRUMENTS (INDIA) PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 275/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: FixedITAT Bangalore11 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 115Section 115QSection 143(3)Section 246A

115-O can be challenged under the clause “an order against the assessee where the assessee denies his liability to be assessed under this Act” mentioned in sec.246A(1)(a) as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court. The above said clause is a separate clause unconnected with the clause “any order of assessment under sub-section (3) of section

PUVVADI SUBHA ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1697/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Prashant Maharishi & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri Tharun Kothari, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Revenue
Section 133(6)Section 250(6)Section 44ASection 69A

condone the delay of 115 days in the present appeal and proceed to decide this appeal. 6. Short facts giving rise to the filing of present appeal are that assessee is an individual filed his return of income on 26.6.2024 declaring a total income of Rs.3,45,530/-. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny. During

TOTGARS CO-OPERATIVE SALE SOCIETY LTD ,SIRSI vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , HUBBALLI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 168/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan & Ms. Bhoomija Verma, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

condone the delay of 286 days. 4. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. That the Honourable Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (‘PCIT’) Hubli has erred both on facts and in law in assuming jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’). 2. That the order under section

M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 109/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 250

condoning the delay. Thus, the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Meeta Gutgutia has reached finality. ITA Nos.107 to 109/Bang/2022 M/s. Trishul Buildtech & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 42 of 115 22. The Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Murli Agro Products

M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 108/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 250

condoning the delay. Thus, the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Meeta Gutgutia has reached finality. ITA Nos.107 to 109/Bang/2022 M/s. Trishul Buildtech & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 42 of 115 22. The Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Murli Agro Products