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.

8 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 139Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Jaipur13Bangalore8Cochin4Delhi2Hyderabad2Chennai1

Key Topics

Section 80J20Addition to Income5Deduction4Section 143(3)3Section 271(1)(b)3Section 271(1)(c)3Section 2493Disallowance3Penalty3Condonation of Delay3Section 206A2Section 200A(1)2

DUSTERS TOTAL SOLUTIONS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

ITA 652/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2018-19
Section 143(3)Section 80J

condone such delay, and the appellant must approach the\nappropriate authority separately.\n\n24.9 The learned CIT(A) also observed that several reasons mentioned\nby the appellant for other delayed payments were not supported by\ndocumentary evidence. The learned CIT(A) further noted that similar\ndelays were seen in earlier years as well. This suggested that the pattern\nof delay

SRI PUTTASWAMACHARI (HUF) ,MYSORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(2), MYSORE

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

ITA 2738/BANG/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.N. Dhandapani, JCIT (DR)
Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

condone the delay and admit these three appeals. 4. Regarding the merit of these appeals, it was submitted by ld. AR of assessee that as per the order of ld. CIT(A) in quantum proceedings, it is held by CIT(A) that the assessee failed to furnish the valid PAN as per law and stated that PAN in Form

SRI PUTTASWAMACHARI (HUF) ,MYSORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(2), MYSORE

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

ITA 2736/BANG/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.N. Dhandapani, JCIT (DR)
Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

condone the delay and admit these three appeals. 4. Regarding the merit of these appeals, it was submitted by ld. AR of assessee that as per the order of ld. CIT(A) in quantum proceedings, it is held by CIT(A) that the assessee failed to furnish the valid PAN as per law and stated that PAN in Form

SRI PUTTASWAMACHARI (HUF) ,MYSORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(2), MYSORE

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

ITA 2737/BANG/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.N. Dhandapani, JCIT (DR)
Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

condone the delay and admit these three appeals. 4. Regarding the merit of these appeals, it was submitted by ld. AR of assessee that as per the order of ld. CIT(A) in quantum proceedings, it is held by CIT(A) that the assessee failed to furnish the valid PAN as per law and stated that PAN in Form

DUSTERS TOTAL SOLUTIONS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 653/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Kavita Jha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 80J

139A(5E), read with Rule 114A, clearly permits the use of Aadhaar in place of PAN. PAN itself is now required to be linked with Aadhaar for it to remain valid. Therefore, Aadhaar should be treated as a sufficient identification document for claiming deduction under section 80JJAA of the Act. The Assessing Officer’s view that PAN alone proves identity

DUSTERS TOTAL SOLUTIONS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 980/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Kavita Jha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 80J

139A(5E), read with Rule 114A, clearly permits the use of Aadhaar in place of PAN. PAN itself is now required to be linked with Aadhaar for it to remain valid. Therefore, Aadhaar should be treated as a sufficient identification document for claiming deduction under section 80JJAA of the Act. The Assessing Officer’s view that PAN alone proves identity

SRI ANNAIAH ,MYSORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(3), MYSORE

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

ITA 945/BANG/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year :2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abdul Hakeem .M, JCIT (DR)
Section 148Section 234Section 249Section 249(4)(b)

condoned the delay and adjudicated the appeal on merits instead of dismissing the same on this ground. 2.2 The learned CIT[A] further ought to have appreciated that mentioning of PAN in Form No. 35 was not a mandatory requirement for filing the first appeal and hence the appeal ought to have been Page 2 of 4 admitted and adjudicated

DY DIT vs. M/S INFOSYS BPO LTD.,,

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue and the cross

ITA 1143/BANG/2013[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jun 2015AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Respondent: Dr. P.K.Srihari, Addl.CIT
Section 115ASection 200A(1)Section 200A(1)(b)Section 206ASection 246A

condoning the delay, if any. 6. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside and the matter, is remitted to the Appellate Authority for re- consideration of the appeals on merits without going into the question of maintainability”. Vide the above order of the Hon’ble High Court the matter was remanded to the records