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.

94 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 133(6)clear

Sorted by relevance

Kolkata218Mumbai152Delhi122Chennai100Bangalore94Ahmedabad93Jaipur91Hyderabad60Surat43Pune35Chandigarh34Visakhapatnam30Rajkot27Lucknow26Patna23Raipur20Indore20Amritsar12Nagpur7Guwahati6Cuttack6SC6Allahabad5Agra4Cochin4Panaji4Ranchi2Varanasi2Dehradun2Jodhpur1

Key Topics

Addition to Income62Section 25040Section 14436Section 69A34Section 14833Condonation of Delay33Section 234E32Section 271H32Section 133(6)

M/S. RMZ HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 954/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 234Section 255Section 255(3)Section 36

condone the above delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. The first ground for our consideration is with regard to the disallowance of Rs.99,02,829/-, which is claimed by assessee as an interest payment. The assessee in the year under consideration advanced a sum of Rs.41 crores towards purchase of shares. The AO questioned the sources of Rs.41

Showing 1–20 of 94 · Page 1 of 5

31
Disallowance30
Section 80P28
Cash Deposit26

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 does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. Length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the criterion. The criterion for condoning the delay is sufficiency of reason and not the length of the delay. 131. The decisive factor

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

Section 80

Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. Length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the criterion. The criterion for condoning the delay is sufficiency of reason and not the length of the delay. 131. The decisive factor

SIRI SANJEEVINI PATTINA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI NIYAMAT ,SIRWAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , RAICHUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1386/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Neha Sahay, JCIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 5Section 801

section 143(3) r.w.s 263 of the Act was passed on 01.03.2023 for the AY2o17-18 without making any additions. 6. It is submitted that the appellant lost track of the CIT(A) order for the AY 2017-18 due to multiple orders passed for the impugned year and accordingly the Chartered Accountant was not informed to file an appeal

SIRI SANJEEVINI PATTINA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI NIYAMAT,SIRWAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, RAICHUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1387/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Neha Sahay, JCIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 5Section 801

section 143(3) r.w.s 263 of the Act was passed on 01.03.2023 for the AY2o17-18 without making any additions. 6. It is submitted that the appellant lost track of the CIT(A) order for the AY 2017-18 due to multiple orders passed for the impugned year and accordingly the Chartered Accountant was not informed to file an appeal

NARAYANAPPA GOVINDARAJU,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE (1)(3) BANGALORE, BANGALORE

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

ITA 1279/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Ravindra Hegde, CAFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153C

133/[1985] 153 ITR 596, considered the condonation of delay and held that there was sufficient and reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. Honble Madras High Court thus condoned nearly 21 years of delay in filing the appeal. As compared to 21 years, delay of about

APOLLO EDUCATION TRUST,BANGALORE vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1215/BANG/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Sept 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V. Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Sri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 234Section 68

section 68 to the extent of Rs.16,12,390/- 2.2 Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned assessing officer u/s.147 r.w.s 144 of the act, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned commissioner of Income Tax Appeals - 11, Bengaluru on 01.09.2022 with a delay of about 133 days in filing the appeal. The assessee had given reasons

APOLLO EDUCATION TRUST,BANGALORE vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1214/BANG/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Sept 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V. Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Sri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 234Section 68

section 68 to the extent of Rs.16,12,390/- 2.2 Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned assessing officer u/s.147 r.w.s 144 of the act, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned commissioner of Income Tax Appeals - 11, Bengaluru on 01.09.2022 with a delay of about 133 days in filing the appeal. The assessee had given reasons

APOLLO EDUCATION TRUST,BANGALORE vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1212/BANG/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Sept 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V. Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Sri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 234Section 68

section 68 to the extent of Rs.16,12,390/- 2.2 Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned assessing officer u/s.147 r.w.s 144 of the act, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned commissioner of Income Tax Appeals - 11, Bengaluru on 01.09.2022 with a delay of about 133 days in filing the appeal. The assessee had given reasons

APOLLO EDUCATION TRUST,BANGALORE vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1213/BANG/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Sept 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V. Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Sri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 234Section 68

section 68 to the extent of Rs.16,12,390/- 2.2 Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned assessing officer u/s.147 r.w.s 144 of the act, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned commissioner of Income Tax Appeals - 11, Bengaluru on 01.09.2022 with a delay of about 133 days in filing the appeal. The assessee had given reasons

UBMC TRUST ASSOCIATION,UDUPI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS WARD-1, MANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee stands allowed on the legal issue raised in the additional ground

ITA 694/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri Ravi Shankar .S.V
Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 234ASection 250

section 250 of the Act before this Hon'ble Tribunal and hear the same on merits for the advancement of substantial cause of justice. i. The appellant humbly prays that this Horilple Tribunal considering the facts of the present case takes lenient and compassionate view and condone the delay in filing the present appeal against the order passed

UBMC TRUST ASSOCIATION,UDUPI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS WARD-1, MANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee stands allowed on the legal issue raised in the additional ground

ITA 693/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri Ravi Shankar .S.V
Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 234ASection 250

section 250 of the Act before this Hon'ble Tribunal and hear the same on merits for the advancement of substantial cause of justice. i. The appellant humbly prays that this Horilple Tribunal considering the facts of the present case takes lenient and compassionate view and condone the delay in filing the present appeal against the order passed

B M MANJUNATHA GUPTA ,SHIVAMOGGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, , SHIVAMOGGA

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

ITA 1276/BANG/2024[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore11 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Sri Joseph Varghese, A.RFor Respondent: Sri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 133ASection 250Section 271Section 274

section 271 of the Act has not been complied with, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 11. Without prejudice to the above though not conceding for the sake of argument, the penalty levied is highly excessive and liable to be reduced substantially, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 12. The appellant craves leave to add, alter

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

6 of 10 9. The appellant has obtained a new PAN:AADAT6714E and has been filing its return of income under the new PAN from the assessment year 2015-16. 10. The appellant submits that it has also changed its e- mail id from pavagadaheadoffice@gmail.com to pavagadaho.adm3@gmail.com for administrative reasons and the earlier email id was no longer

UDAYA SOUHARDA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1535/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(1)Section 801

section 8013 of the Act (Refer Pg.53 of the ITR) and advised the appellant that it has a strong case on merits and advised to file an appeal and accordingly the appeal came to be filed before your Honours on 11.07.2024 resulting in a delay of 1350 days. h. The appellant places reliance on the decision

BIJU PAPPACHAN,KERALA vs. AO, BANGALORE

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

ITA 2153/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Ms. Akshatha Prasad, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ganesh R Ghale, D.R
Section 250

condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, we proceed to adjudicate the issues involved in the present appeal instead of remitting the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for consideration. 8. On going through the reassessment order passed by the AO, we take note of the fact that the assessee

PREM PRAKASH GUPTA ,BANGALORE vs. ITO, WARD-6(2)(2), BANGALORE

Appeal of the assessee stands dismissed as not admitted

ITA 53/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Revenue
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 69A

6. The appellant approached a tax practitioner for the next course of action. The tax practitioner expressed his inability to file appeal against the order of the CIT(A) and advised the appellant to meet the present counsel. 7. The appellant met and sought assistance of the counsel. The counsel advised the appellant to file an appeal before the Income

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

section 246A of the Act. 8. The ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismiss the appeal of the assessee in limine by not condoning the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC. 9. Again, being aggrieved by the Order of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, the assessee has filed the present appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee has also

WELCOME TRADERS,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1264/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Akshaya, CAFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 249(3)Section 37

133(6) was also sent to creditors for verification Page 2 of 8 of purchase and genuineness, some of the creditors did not respond. Therefore the AO doubted the genuineness of transactions and made disallowance u/s. 37 of Rs.1,58,22,786. The AO also made addition u/s. s. 40A(3) of Rs.94,40,000 and completed the assessment

CHOURASIAINFRATECH PVT LTD., ,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 317/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Y Pranay Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, JCIT
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 246ASection 250Section 253(3)

condonation of delay of 448 days in filing the appeal. Page 2 of 7 3. Considered the reason stated by the assessee along with the duly sworn Affidavit, which reads as under:- “The above named Appellant most respectfully submits as follows: 1. The Appellant is an private limited company engaged in the business of construction. The Appellant filed his return