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.

120 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 125clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai159Mumbai133Karnataka122Bangalore120Kolkata92Ahmedabad86Delhi85Jaipur51Chandigarh44Hyderabad41Calcutta40Pune38Indore28Rajkot23Surat18Lucknow13Cuttack13Ranchi10Amritsar7Jodhpur7Telangana6Panaji6Patna6SC6Nagpur5Raipur4Cochin3Orissa2Guwahati2Visakhapatnam1Andhra Pradesh1Jabalpur1Punjab & Haryana1Rajasthan1Agra1

Key Topics

Section 234E108Addition to Income41Condonation of Delay37Section 143(3)35Section 15431Disallowance31Section 10A27Section 25025Section 153A

SREESHARADA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,UDUPI vs. ITO WARD- 1&TPS , UDUPI

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1316/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 80

Section 5 of the Limitation Act is an expression of elastic import, incapable of precise definition, yet not without boundaries. Its purpose is to empower courts to advance the cause of justice by preventing genuine litigants from being shut out on account of unavoidable delays. At the Page 4 of 19 same time, it is equally clear that the phrase

SREESHARADA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,UDUPI vs. ITO WARD- 1&TPS , UDUPI

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1315/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi

Showing 1–20 of 120 · Page 1 of 6

24
Section 14422
Section 14822
TDS21
Section 80

Section 5 of the Limitation Act is an expression of elastic import, incapable of precise definition, yet not without boundaries. Its purpose is to empower courts to advance the cause of justice by preventing genuine litigants from being shut out on account of unavoidable delays. At the Page 4 of 19 same time, it is equally clear that the phrase

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)

condoning such delay. Accordingly, the ld. PCIT Bangalore-3, held that the delay in filing Form 67 for the AY 2021- 22 is rejected. 12.2 We also take a note of the fact that the main reason as cited by the assessee for not filing the Form 67 on or before the due date of filing the return of income

SRI. MUTHAIAH SANNASURAYYA,DAVANGERE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

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

ITA 785/BANG/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Dec 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 271

delay in filing of appeal of 125 days that was not condoned and the failure to pay admitted tax is not at all mentioneci in the affidavit. 6.5 Para 12 of the affidavit is reproduced below for reference: "That, the then IT? engaged the services of Senior Tax Consultant Sri. S. Venkateshan, Chartered Accountant at Bengaluru fur preferring appeals before

SRI. MUTHAIAH SANNASURAYYA,DAVANGERE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

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

ITA 786/BANG/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Dec 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 271

delay in filing of appeal of 125 days that was not condoned and the failure to pay admitted tax is not at all mentioneci in the affidavit. 6.5 Para 12 of the affidavit is reproduced below for reference: "That, the then IT? engaged the services of Senior Tax Consultant Sri. S. Venkateshan, Chartered Accountant at Bengaluru fur preferring appeals before

SRI. MUTHAIAH SANNASURAYYA ,DAVANGERE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

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

ITA 787/BANG/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 271

delay in filing of appeal of 125 days that was not condoned and the failure to pay admitted tax is not at all mentioneci in the affidavit. 6.5 Para 12 of the affidavit is reproduced below for reference: "That, the then IT? engaged the services of Senior Tax Consultant Sri. S. Venkateshan, Chartered Accountant at Bengaluru fur preferring appeals before

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

125 held that any 7. NA assessment made on the basis of a return, which is an invalid or a non-est return, is void ab initio and even notice u/s 143(2) cannot be issued. Page 3 of 23 Shri M. Nagaraja, Mysore The Hon'ble CIT(A), Mysore failed in adjudicating upon the validity of the revised return

APPASAB AVADANNA LAVATE ,BIJAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, BIJAPUR

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

ITA 150/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Prathibha R., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Revenue
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

section 115BBE and assessment order u/s. 144 Page 4 of 10 of the Act was passed determining the total income of assessee at Rs.15 lakhs. 4. The assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who passed an order on 11.12.2024 wherein the appeal was delayed by 89 days. Assessee failed to show sufficient cause and therefore the appellate authority

M/S. TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU, CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

ITA 582/BANG/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

For Appellant: Shri Jairam Raipura, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Annamalli & Shri Narendra Sharma, A.Rs
Section 154

condone this inordinate delay of 1694 days and the appeal is dismissed unadmitted. Accordingly, we decline to admit the appeal and dismiss the appeal in limine. IT(TP)A No.296, 468 & 1119/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.621 & 694/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A No.1674/Bang/2018 & IT(TP)A No.582/Bang/2021 Page 7 of 34 ITA No.468/Bang/2015 (A.Y. 2010-11) (Assessee’s appeal):- 4. Grounds urged

ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

ITA 296/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

For Appellant: Shri Jairam Raipura, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Annamalli & Shri Narendra Sharma, A.Rs
Section 154

condone this inordinate delay of 1694 days and the appeal is dismissed unadmitted. Accordingly, we decline to admit the appeal and dismiss the appeal in limine. IT(TP)A No.296, 468 & 1119/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.621 & 694/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A No.1674/Bang/2018 & IT(TP)A No.582/Bang/2021 Page 7 of 34 ITA No.468/Bang/2015 (A.Y. 2010-11) (Assessee’s appeal):- 4. Grounds urged

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

ITA 1119/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

For Appellant: Shri Jairam Raipura, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Annamalli & Shri Narendra Sharma, A.Rs
Section 154

condone this inordinate delay of 1694 days and the appeal is dismissed unadmitted. Accordingly, we decline to admit the appeal and dismiss the appeal in limine. IT(TP)A No.296, 468 & 1119/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.621 & 694/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A No.1674/Bang/2018 & IT(TP)A No.582/Bang/2021 Page 7 of 34 ITA No.468/Bang/2015 (A.Y. 2010-11) (Assessee’s appeal):- 4. Grounds urged

TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

ITA 694/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

For Appellant: Shri Jairam Raipura, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Annamalli & Shri Narendra Sharma, A.Rs
Section 154

condone this inordinate delay of 1694 days and the appeal is dismissed unadmitted. Accordingly, we decline to admit the appeal and dismiss the appeal in limine. IT(TP)A No.296, 468 & 1119/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.621 & 694/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A No.1674/Bang/2018 & IT(TP)A No.582/Bang/2021 Page 7 of 34 ITA No.468/Bang/2015 (A.Y. 2010-11) (Assessee’s appeal):- 4. Grounds urged

TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

ITA 468/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

For Appellant: Shri Jairam Raipura, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Annamalli & Shri Narendra Sharma, A.Rs
Section 154

condone this inordinate delay of 1694 days and the appeal is dismissed unadmitted. Accordingly, we decline to admit the appeal and dismiss the appeal in limine. IT(TP)A No.296, 468 & 1119/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.621 & 694/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A No.1674/Bang/2018 & IT(TP)A No.582/Bang/2021 Page 7 of 34 ITA No.468/Bang/2015 (A.Y. 2010-11) (Assessee’s appeal):- 4. Grounds urged

M/S TEJATS NETWORKS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

ITA 1674/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

For Appellant: Shri Jairam Raipura, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Annamalli & Shri Narendra Sharma, A.Rs
Section 154

condone this inordinate delay of 1694 days and the appeal is dismissed unadmitted. Accordingly, we decline to admit the appeal and dismiss the appeal in limine. IT(TP)A No.296, 468 & 1119/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.621 & 694/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A No.1674/Bang/2018 & IT(TP)A No.582/Bang/2021 Page 7 of 34 ITA No.468/Bang/2015 (A.Y. 2010-11) (Assessee’s appeal):- 4. Grounds urged

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

ITA 621/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

For Appellant: Shri Jairam Raipura, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Annamalli & Shri Narendra Sharma, A.Rs
Section 154

condone this inordinate delay of 1694 days and the appeal is dismissed unadmitted. Accordingly, we decline to admit the appeal and dismiss the appeal in limine. IT(TP)A No.296, 468 & 1119/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.621 & 694/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A No.1674/Bang/2018 & IT(TP)A No.582/Bang/2021 Page 7 of 34 ITA No.468/Bang/2015 (A.Y. 2010-11) (Assessee’s appeal):- 4. Grounds urged

SHREE HANUMAN CREDIT SOUHARD SAHAKARI LIMITED,CHIKODI vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, HUBLI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 29/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P

condone the delay in filing the appeals before us and consider the appeal for adjudication. 8. Though the assessee has raised grounds both on legal issue and merits, during the course of hearing, the ld. AR presented arguments with regard to the merits of the case wherein it is contended that the AO has conducted proper enquiry before concluding

M/S. PROGRAMMING RESEARCH SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD- 2(3), BENGALURU

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

ITA 1788/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Mar 2020AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Muthu Krishnan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Chandekar, D.R
Section 200ASection 234E

125 days in filing all these appeals before Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. A.R. invited our attention to the petition filed before Ld. CIT(A) explaining the delay, which read as under: ITA Nos.1783 to 1808/Bang/2019 M/s.Programming Research Software Technology Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru Page 5 of 8 7. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee has furnished reasonable explanation

M/S. PROGRAMMING RESEARCH SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD- 2(3), BENGALURU

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

ITA 1789/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Mar 2020AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Muthu Krishnan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Chandekar, D.R
Section 200ASection 234E

125 days in filing all these appeals before Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. A.R. invited our attention to the petition filed before Ld. CIT(A) explaining the delay, which read as under: ITA Nos.1783 to 1808/Bang/2019 M/s.Programming Research Software Technology Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru Page 5 of 8 7. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee has furnished reasonable explanation

M/S. PROGRAMMING RESEARCH SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD- 2(3), BENGALURU

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

ITA 1800/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Mar 2020AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Muthu Krishnan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Chandekar, D.R
Section 200ASection 234E

125 days in filing all these appeals before Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. A.R. invited our attention to the petition filed before Ld. CIT(A) explaining the delay, which read as under: ITA Nos.1783 to 1808/Bang/2019 M/s.Programming Research Software Technology Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru Page 5 of 8 7. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee has furnished reasonable explanation

M/S. PROGRAMMING RESEARCH SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD- 2(3), BENGALURU

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

ITA 1790/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Mar 2020AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Muthu Krishnan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Chandekar, D.R
Section 200ASection 234E

125 days in filing all these appeals before Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. A.R. invited our attention to the petition filed before Ld. CIT(A) explaining the delay, which read as under: ITA Nos.1783 to 1808/Bang/2019 M/s.Programming Research Software Technology Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru Page 5 of 8 7. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee has furnished reasonable explanation