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.

84 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 119(2)(b)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai192Chennai177Delhi148Chandigarh99Pune98Bangalore84Kolkata74Ahmedabad68Hyderabad46Jaipur38Cuttack31Indore31Lucknow22Cochin18Nagpur17Surat17Rajkot16Agra13Jodhpur10Amritsar10Raipur9Guwahati9Dehradun8SC8Varanasi7Visakhapatnam6Patna5Panaji4Jabalpur3Ranchi1

Key Topics

Section 1185Section 12A58Section 80P55Section 143(1)53Section 139(1)42Addition to Income40Section 119(2)(b)34Exemption33Section 115B

M/S. ARHAM MITRA MANDAL,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTIONS)-WARD-1, BANGALORE

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

ITA 1110/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jun 2024AY 2018-19
Section 119Section 119(2)(b)Section 250

119(2)(b)", "Section 143(1)", "Section 250", "Section 10B", "Section 139(1)", "Section 139(5)", "Section 234A", "Section 234B" ], "issues": "Whether the delay in filing the audit report is fatal to the claim for exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, and whether the condonation

SHREE REVANASIDDESHWARA PATTINA SAHAKARI SANGH NIYAMIT RAMPUR ,BAGALKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, BAGALKOT

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

Showing 1–20 of 84 · Page 1 of 5

32
Condonation of Delay30
Deduction30
Section 25028
ITA 1740/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: Disposed
ITAT Bangalore
24 Jan 2025
AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Years: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Dept
Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

condone the delay in filing the return of income, thereby allowing the benefit of deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. Accordingly, the learned AR submitted that the assessee, vide letter dated 07/10/2024, had filed a petition under section 119(2)(b

M/S. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the four A

ITA 643/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K. (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Chythanya .K, SrFor Respondent: Shri E. Shridhar, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

condonation of delay\nin filing a revised return\nof\nincome\nfor\nthe\n Assessment Year 1997-98\nunder Section 119(2)(b

M/S. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

ITA 644/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Apr 2025AY 2019-20
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

condonation of delay\nin filing a revised return\nof\nincome\nfor\nthe\n Assessment Year 1997-98\nunder Section 119(2)(b

M/S. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 645/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Apr 2025AY 2020-21
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

condonation of delay\nin filing a revised return\nincome\nfor\nthe\n Assessment Year 1997-98\nunder Section 119(2)(b

SHRI GANGAPARAMESHWARI URABAN CO OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD MUDALGI,MUDALGI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, GOKAK

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

ITA 267/BANG/2024[201819]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Mar 2024

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Sri.Sateesh Nadagouda, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Gale, Standing Counsel
Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

section 119(2)(b) of the Act for condonation of delay in filing the return of income and the same

INMOBI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE3(1)(1), BANGALORE

ITA 303/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jun 2024AY 2017-18
For Appellant: \nShri Chaitanya, Sr. Advocate a/wFor Respondent: \nMs. Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

section 142[1], either the Assessing Officer or the Prescribed Income- tax Authority, as the case may be, if, it is considered necessary or expedient to ensure that an assessee has not understated the income or has not computed excessive loss or has not underpaid tax in any manner, shall serve on the assessee a notice for attendance or production

M/S. MASTERKEY HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 88/BANG/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Mar 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri. Sudheendra B. R, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Stalin B, JCIT (DRs)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115BSection 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

condone the delay in filing Form 10-IC((iii) under section 119(2)(b) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved by the Orders

M/S. MASTERKEY HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 87/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Mar 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri. Sudheendra B. R, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Stalin B, JCIT (DRs)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115BSection 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

condone the delay in filing Form 10-IC((iii) under section 119(2)(b) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved by the Orders

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

119(2)(b) to provide a mechanism for condonation of delay. Circular No. 13/2023 and Circular No. 14/2024 where in these circulars authorize Chief Commissioners of Income-tax (CCsIT)/Directors General of Income-tax (DGsIT) to admit and Page 17 of 20 decide applications for condonation of delay in furnishing returns of income claiming Section

SRI PRAJA CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 28/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Mar 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2020-21 M/S. Sri Praja Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd., Vs. Ito, No.1, 3Rd Main Road, Nagappa Block, Ward – 2(2)(1), Sriramapura, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 021. Pan : Aaajs 1557 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Srinivas Bharath, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian S, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 06.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.03.2024

For Appellant: Shri. Srinivas Bharath, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

section 119(2)(b) of the Act for condonation of delay in filing the return of income and the same

SHREE CHANNAMALESHWARA CREDIT C-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,,KALABURAGI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, GULBARGA

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

ITA 203/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Ms.Lakshmi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Gale, Standing Counsel
Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80ASection 80P

section 119(2)(b) of the Act for condonation of delay in filing the return of income and the same

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)

119(2)(b) of the Act by observing that there is no mention of condonation of delay in filing Form 67 in CBDT circular no.9/2015 and no other similar circular has been issued by the Board for condoning such delay. Accordingly, the ld. PCIT Bangalore-3, held that the delay in filing Form

SUVARNA AROGYA SURAKSHA TRUST,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE - 1, BANGALORE, BANGALORE

ITA 947/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Deepak, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

B was the signatory to Form 35. Now it is Dr. Jayalakshmi H V, who is the signatory in Form 36. It is not disputed that due to appointment of Executive Director as well as Finance Director, who was transferred and new Officers could be appointed only in February, 2025, who on due diligence of pending legal matters, found

SREE JESHTA LAXMI WELFARE AND CHARITABLE TRUST ,BANGALORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1803/BANG/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2026-27 M/S. Sree Jeshta Laxmi Welfare & Vs. Cit (Exemptions), Charitable Trust, Unity Building Annexe, No.50, Karnataka Layout, Mission Road, 2Nd Cross, Basaveshwara Nagar, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 079. Pan : Aakts 9479 B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Rajeev Nulvi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Muthu Shankar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 12A

condonation of delay before the Principal CIT under section 119(2)(b) of the Act. Even otherwise, he submitted that

M/S. H M V EDUCATIONAL CULTURAL & SOCIAL TRUST, ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER[EXEMPTIONS], WARD-1, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 9/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Mar 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Sri V.Srinivasan, Advocate and Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Sri. Sunil Kumar Singh, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 119Section 12ASection 139Section 143(1)Section 234

section 139(4A) of the I.T. Act. During the year, there was a loss for the impugned assessment year and she also submitted that the CPC is not justified for making disallowance by observing that Form No.10B was not filed within the due date. The assessee has filed condonation of delay u/s. 119(2)(b

M/S. MFAR HOLDINGS PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BENGALURU

ITA 2089/BANG/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Dec 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

119 Taxman. Com ITA Nos.1670&2089/Bang/2024 M/s. MFAR Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 12 of 18 383(SC) has affirmed the view of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court, wherein the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court could not condone the delay, for the want of medical records and has observed as under: - “The main excuse of delay in filing

M/S. MFAR HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BENGALURU

ITA 1670/BANG/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Dec 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

119 Taxman. Com ITA Nos.1670&2089/Bang/2024 M/s. MFAR Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 12 of 18 383(SC) has affirmed the view of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court, wherein the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court could not condone the delay, for the want of medical records and has observed as under: - “The main excuse of delay in filing

M/S. MULKI SUNDAR RAM SHETTY NAGAR AYYAPPA SWAMY TEMPLE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS, WARD-2, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 949/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Shreesh Kumar E. Hegde, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella VP Pavan Kumar, D.R
Section 1Section 11(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 234B

condonation of delay under section 119(2)(b) of the Act. The Commissioners will while entertaining such belated applications in filing

M/S. YASHA PATTINA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI NI,RAICHUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, , RAICHUR

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

ITA 1177/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Feb 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Channamalikarjuna Gowda, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Revenue
Section 154Section 253(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

delay of 150 days is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 5. After hearing both the parties, I am of the opinion that similar issue came for consideration before this Tribunal in the case of M/s. CSI Credit Co-operative Society Vs. ITO cited (supra) wherein the Tribunal has held as under:- M/s. Yaksh Pattina Souharda Sahakari