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.

69 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 133Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai116Delhi91Kolkata74Chennai72Jaipur69Bangalore69Visakhapatnam53Hyderabad51Raipur45Chandigarh36Surat24Pune22Patna21Rajkot18Cochin15Ahmedabad10Nagpur9Indore6Lucknow6Panaji4Kerala4Cuttack4SC3Jabalpur2Allahabad2Karnataka1Guwahati1Jodhpur1Agra1Ranchi1

Key Topics

Addition to Income49Section 14848Section 133A45Survey u/s 133A39Section 14729Section 12A27Section 271(1)(c)26Section 201(1)26Section 143(3)

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

condoned the delay in filing the appeal and thereby ought to have admitted the appeal and adjudicated on the grounds raised by the B.M. Manjunatha Gupta, Shivamogga Page 2 of 16 appellant in the interest of justice and equity, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The appellant denies himself liable for penalty imposed by the learned assessing

Showing 1–20 of 69 · Page 1 of 4

25
Section 10(5)25
TDS20
Deduction18

M/S. ODION BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) - WARD - 2(3), BANGALORE

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

ITA 807/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri G. N. Bhatt, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. S. Palani Kumar, Addl. CIT (D.R)
Section 133ASection 194ISection 194LSection 201(1)

133A of the Act at the business premises of the assessee's firm on 12.7.2016 to verify the compliance of TDS provisions. The Assessing Officer on verifying the facts and the information and dealt on the provisions of Section 194IA of the Act and found that the assessee has not deducted TDS on payments and raised demand under Section

M/S. MULTI TEK INTERIOR SOLUTIONS ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4) , BENGALURU

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

ITA 894/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Sri Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R
Section 234Section 250Section 40Section 44A

delay by way of condonation petition stating as follows: 1. “An order of assessment under section 143 [3] of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was passed on 28/02/2022 for the Assessment Year 2020-21 by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle - 2[2], Bengaluru. Since the appellant is not sure about the correct date of receipt

CHIEF OFFIER,DAVANGERE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD, DAVANGERE

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

ITA 932/BANG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 133ASection 194Section 194C

133A of the Act on 05.03.2015 to verify the compliance of TDS ITA No.931 & 932/Bang/2024 Page 2 of 7 provisions on certain payments as per Receipt & Payment account which is incorporated by the AO in his order. The assessee is a Gram Panchayat (Town Municipal Corporation), a State Govt. Organization, carrying out the main functions of Government Schemes like Ashraya

CHIEF OFFIER,DAVANGERE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD, DAVANGERE

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

ITA 931/BANG/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 133ASection 194Section 194C

133A of the Act on 05.03.2015 to verify the compliance of TDS ITA No.931 & 932/Bang/2024 Page 2 of 7 provisions on certain payments as per Receipt & Payment account which is incorporated by the AO in his order. The assessee is a Gram Panchayat (Town Municipal Corporation), a State Govt. Organization, carrying out the main functions of Government Schemes like Ashraya

R G PATIL & COMPANY,HAVERI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELAGAVI

In the result, these 2 appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 352/BANG/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.V Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT (DR)
Section 271(1)(c)

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 12. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of processing of dry chillies and trading in chilly powder. The assessee filed return of income u/s 139(1) on 23/9/2010 declaring income of Rs.7,14,440/-. Consequent upon search and seizure action the assessee

PRACTO TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), BENGALURU, BANGALORE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 311/BANG/2024[AY 2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Feb 2025

Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED (Accountant Member), SHRI KESHAV DUBEY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144C(10)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 153

133A, proceedings under section 147 of the Act were initiated accordingly notice under section 148 of the Act dated 25.03.2021 was issued, requiring the Assessee to file a return of income within 5 days from date of issue of notice. Due to the paucity of time allowed in notice under section 148 of the Act, the Assessee filed a letter

ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. SRI. K.R. KAVIRAJ, HOSPET

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 362/BANG/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Dec 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri M. Karunakaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Kumar Singh, CIT-II (D.R)
Section 10Section 12ASection 132Section 143(3)

condone the delay of 17 days in filing the appeal. 6. The assessee is a charitable and educational trust established in the year 1992 by Trust Deed Dt.20.5.1992. The assessee was granted a Registration under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') vide orderdt.16.9.1992. The assessee was also granted approval under Section

SRI SHIVAKUMARA SWAMY CREDIT COOP SOCIETY LIMITED,DAVANAGERE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, DAVANAGERE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 474/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate for Standing
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 68

condone the delay of 125 days in filing the appeal and proceed for hearing on merits. 3. The effective issue raised by the assessee is that the revenue authorities erred in holding that the assessee could not transact in Specified Bank Notes (SBNs) and further erred in treating the cash deposits made during the demonetization period as unexplained credits

SMT C I INDIRA ,DAVANGERE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1), DAVANGERE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2015-16 is

ITA 2439/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Oct 2018AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Smt. R. Mrinalini, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Suryavanshi, Addl. CIT (D.R)
Section 133ASection 143(3)

Section 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') was conducted at the assessee's business premises on 3.11.2014; in the course of which it was noticed that the assessee and her son had jointly invested in the purchase and renovation of a building to be used as a convention hall. The difference in the purchase consideration for building

THE KARUR VYSYA BANK LTD,BELLARY vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TDS CIRCLE, HUBLI-DHARWAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2886/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Oct 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R.N Siddappapji, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 12ASection 133ASection 194ASection 197ASection 201Section 201(1)

133A of the Act. It was noticed that the assessee has not deducted tax at source u/s 194A of the Act from the interest payment made by it on term deposits in some cases. In Page 2 of 19 some other cases, it was noticed that the assessee had deducted TDS @ 10% from interest payment made to some

SHRI. SANNAPPA RAMAPPA,DAVANGERE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), DAVANGERE

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

ITA 50/BANG/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Ms. Richa Bakiwala, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

section 133(6) of the Act to cross-verify the information before concluding the assessment proceedings, thereby vitiating the assessment. The learned Assessing Officer erred in disregarding the Appellant's submission that they acted solely as an agent in the property sales. The addition should have been limited to the XI commission of Rs. 10,000/- per site, totalling

BASHIR AHMED ABDURRAHMAN MATTE,BELAGAVI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BELAGAVI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6/BANG/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.V Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263

condonation of delay. The ld.Pr.CIT has pointed out that the AO has ignored the issue which was the subject matter of the survey carried out u/s 133A of the Act and the AO should have examined in detail with regard to the valuation of the cost of construction carried out by the assessee for hospital building. The matter

SHRI. NAGARAJ VINAYAK JOSHI,KARAWAR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) , BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 239/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. D. K. Mishra, CIT(DR), ITAT, Bengaluru
Section 115BSection 133ASection 263Section 69

condone the delay in filing of the appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18 and proceed to dispose off the matter on merits. 4. Common issues are raised in these appeals; hence, the appeals were heard together and are being disposed off by this consolidated order. 5. The solitary issue that is raised in these appeals is whether the PCIT

SHRI. NAGARAJ VINAYAK JOSHI,KARAWAR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) , BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 238/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. D. K. Mishra, CIT(DR), ITAT, Bengaluru
Section 115BSection 133ASection 263Section 69

condone the delay in filing of the appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18 and proceed to dispose off the matter on merits. 4. Common issues are raised in these appeals; hence, the appeals were heard together and are being disposed off by this consolidated order. 5. The solitary issue that is raised in these appeals is whether the PCIT

STATE BANK OF INDIA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), CIRCLE -3(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1621/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Raghavendra Chakravarthy, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT-DR
Section 10(5)Section 133ASection 192Section 201Section 201(1)Section 249(3)

133A of the I.T.Act in the Head office of the assessee bank. It was noticed during the course of survey that the assessee bank had allowed the claim of its employees of LTC u/s 10(5) of the I.T.Act, even for foreign travel. Accordingly the order u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) of the I.T.Act was passed for making short

M/S. WATERLINE HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 388/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14 Waterline Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner 10Th Floor, Gamma Block, Of Income Tax, Sigma Soft Tech Park No.07, Circle 7(1)(2), Airport Varthur Road, Bangalore. Whitefield, Bangalore – 560 066. Pan: Aaacw 8059N Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Pranav Krishna, Advocate Respondent By : Shri V S Chakrapani, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S.This Appeal By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Cit(Appeals)-7, Bengaluru Dated 27.3.2019 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised 18 Grounds Pertaining To The Following Issues:- Page 2 Of 20

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V S Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 271Section 40Section 56(2)(viib)

condone the delay and consider the appeal for adjudication. Page 5 of 20 Valuation of shares 8. The AO during the course of assessment noticed that the assessee has received share premium on allotment of shares to the tune of Rs.33,71,77,500 and called for the details of the same. The assessee submitted the break

SHASHIDHARA ,SHIVAMOGGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1& TPS, SHIVAMOGGA

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

ITA 959/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George Kr Assessment Year : 2015-16 Mr. Shashidhara, Vs. Ito, C/O Shadakshari Sri Banashakari Nilaya, Ward – 1 & Tps, Kuvempu Road, Besides Mant Kuvempu Road, Shivamogga. Shivamogga – 577 201. Pan : Czyps 1448 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Gowrish, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel For Department. Date Of Hearing : 25.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.06.2024

For Appellant: Shri. Gowrish, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 69C

condone the delay of 68 days in filing this appeal and proceed to dispose off the same on merits. 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows: During the course of survey in the case of Shri. L. Venkatesh on 18.02.2019, a statement was recorded from him under section 133A

MR. MITHESH KUMAR JAYANTILAL,MANGALORE vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

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

ITA 160/BANG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2012-13 Mr. Mithesh Kumar Jayantilal, The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, 103, 130/30, Steel Centre Central Circle – 1, Building, Near Urdu School, Vs. Mangalore. Kasaigalli, Bunder, Mangalore, Karnataka – 575 001. Pan : Afhpj 0632 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Satya Prakash Singh, Ca Revenue By : Smt. Nishi Padma, Addl. Cit(Dr), Itat, Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 06.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2023

For Appellant: Shri. Satya Prakash Singh, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Nishi Padma, Addl. CIT(DR), ITAT, Bengaluru
Section 133ASection 144Section 148Section 250

delay of 76 days is condoned and we proceed to dispose off the appeal on merits. 4. The solitary issue that is raised is whether the CIT(A) is justified in confirming the addition of Rs.7,71,163/- being 8% of the suppressed turnover i.e., Rs.96,39,541/- as alleged by the AO. 5. Brief facts of the case

M/S JAICO AUTOMOBILE ENGINEERING COMPANY PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-11(5), BANGALORE

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

ITA 125/BANG/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Sept 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, D.R
Section 271(1)(c)

133A of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short], it was found that there were sale of scrap, out of which the assessee had recorded Rs.31,45,974/- in the books of accounts. The remaining amount of Rs.25,76,253/- was not available in the books of accounts. The assessee explained that out of sale of scrap