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 115(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi230Chennai230Mumbai161Karnataka123Kolkata69Bangalore66Hyderabad52Jaipur46Surat45Visakhapatnam40Calcutta38Amritsar32Chandigarh25Ahmedabad25Pune22Rajkot18Lucknow16Panaji16Cuttack16Indore15Varanasi14Guwahati12Jabalpur12Cochin9SC7Nagpur6Raipur6Patna5Allahabad5Jodhpur4Telangana3Rajasthan1Orissa1Agra1Himachal Pradesh1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

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

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 107/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

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

3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer would be required to reopen these proceedings and reassess the total income taking notice of undisclosed income even found during the search and seizure operation. The fetter imposed upon the Assessing Officer under Sections 147 and 148 of the Act have been removed by the non obstante clause under Section 153A

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

Showing 1–20 of 66 · Page 1 of 4

17
Section 80I15
Section 10(5)15
Section 143(1)13
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

3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer would be required to reopen these proceedings and reassess the total income taking notice of undisclosed income even found during the search and seizure operation. The fetter imposed upon the Assessing Officer under Sections 147 and 148 of the Act have been removed by the non obstante clause under Section 153A

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

3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer would be required to reopen these proceedings and reassess the total income taking notice of undisclosed income even found during the search and seizure operation. The fetter imposed upon the Assessing Officer under Sections 147 and 148 of the Act have been removed by the non obstante clause under Section 153A

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

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)

3 of 10 filing of the appeal. The CIT(A) has not given any finding on merit in any of the case. Therefore, the solitary issue before us is whether there were sufficient ground/ reasons for condoning the delay before the CIT(A). 4. Though the learned Counsel for the assessee has emphatically argued that in the hands

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)

3 of 10 filing of the appeal. The CIT(A) has not given any finding on merit in any of the case. Therefore, the solitary issue before us is whether there were sufficient ground/ reasons for condoning the delay before the CIT(A). 4. Though the learned Counsel for the assessee has emphatically argued that in the hands

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)

3 of 10 filing of the appeal. The CIT(A) has not given any finding on merit in any of the case. Therefore, the solitary issue before us is whether there were sufficient ground/ reasons for condoning the delay before the CIT(A). 4. Though the learned Counsel for the assessee has emphatically argued that in the hands

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)

3 of 10 filing of the appeal. The CIT(A) has not given any finding on merit in any of the case. Therefore, the solitary issue before us is whether there were sufficient ground/ reasons for condoning the delay before the CIT(A). 4. Though the learned Counsel for the assessee has emphatically argued that in the hands

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 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)

3 of 10 filing of the appeal. The CIT(A) has not given any finding on merit in any of the case. Therefore, the solitary issue before us is whether there were sufficient ground/ reasons for condoning the delay before the CIT(A). 4. Though the learned Counsel for the assessee has emphatically argued that in the hands

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. 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)

3. Accordingly the ld. AR requested for condonation of delay of 571 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. 4. On the other hand, the ld. DR has not put forth any serious objection condonation of delay. 5. I have heard both the parties with regard to condonation of delay. There was a delay of 571 days in filing

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

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

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

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 263 of the Act is so far as it is against the, Appellant

M/S. VEE TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 7(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2042/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Vee Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, No.71, Sona Towers, Millers Road, Bengaluru – 7, Bengaluru – 560 052. Bengaluru. Pan : Aabcv 0100 C Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.2042/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Vee Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, No.71, Sona Towers, Millers Road, Ward – 7[1][2], Bengaluru – 560 052. Bengaluru. Pan : Aabcv 0100 C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Suresh Muthukrishna, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 02.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.03.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan:

For Appellant: Shri. Suresh Muthukrishna, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 92C

condonation of delay on the basis of advice of a Counsel when action based on the advice is taken after a considerable lapse of time. The appeal in ITA No.7/Bang/2022 is therefore dismissed. 7. IT(TP) No.2042/Bang/2019: As we have already seen this appeal out of the order passed under section 263 of the Act, which we have discussed while

M/S. VEE TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-7, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Vee Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, No.71, Sona Towers, Millers Road, Bengaluru – 7, Bengaluru – 560 052. Bengaluru. Pan : Aabcv 0100 C Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.2042/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Vee Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, No.71, Sona Towers, Millers Road, Ward – 7[1][2], Bengaluru – 560 052. Bengaluru. Pan : Aabcv 0100 C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Suresh Muthukrishna, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 02.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.03.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan:

For Appellant: Shri. Suresh Muthukrishna, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 92C

condonation of delay on the basis of advice of a Counsel when action based on the advice is taken after a considerable lapse of time. The appeal in ITA No.7/Bang/2022 is therefore dismissed. 7. IT(TP) No.2042/Bang/2019: As we have already seen this appeal out of the order passed under section 263 of the Act, which we have discussed while