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.

31 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 144C(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi131Mumbai116Kolkata36Hyderabad35Chennai31Bangalore31Pune27Jaipur13Ahmedabad11Indore8Nagpur5Chandigarh5Visakhapatnam3Rajkot3Cochin2Dehradun2Calcutta1Lucknow1Agra1SC1Raipur1Cuttack1

Key Topics

Section 15436Section 143(3)22Transfer Pricing17Condonation of Delay17Addition to Income15Section 92C13Limitation/Time-bar11Section 14810Section 144C

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

YOKOGAWA INDIA LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Showing 1–20 of 31 · Page 1 of 2

8
Section 143(2)8
Comparables/TP7
Section 1446
ITA 1715/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: Disposed
ITAT Bangalore
11 Mar 2021
AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AOvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 143Section 144Section 234BSection 253

144C (2) expired on 11/04/2016. Assessee in the present facts filed objections before DRP on 13/04/2016, thereby causing 2 days delay. The view taken by DRP that it has no power to condone the delay is inasmuch as such power is absent under section

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

condonation of delay in e-verification of the return. 3.9 The Assessee filed its objections with the Dispute Resolution Panel ('DRP') in Form 35A, as per section 144C(2

M/S CONERGY ENERGY SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 88/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Sudheendra, C AFor Respondent: Shri Sundar Rao Chintala, CIT-1 (D.R)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C(2)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

condone the delay beyond the period specified for filing of objections under Section 144C(2) of the Act. Therefore the assessee

FLOWSERVE INDIA CONTROLS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2007-08 is partly allowed

ITA 1277/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C.H.Sundar Rao, CIT (D.R)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

condone the delay in filing this appeal before the Tribunal and admit the appeal for consideration and adjudication. It is ordered accordingly. O R D E R This appeal by the assessee is directed against the final order of assessment passed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') vide order dt.23.9.2011

SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC IT BUSINESS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED(FORMERLY KNOWN AS AMERICAN POWER CONVERSION (INDIA) PVT LTD.),BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LARGE TAX PAYERS, , BANGALORE

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

ITA 2002/BANG/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Guru Prasad BL, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 250Section 263

2. First, it is noted that there is a delay of 1206 days in filing the appeal before the ITAT. The assessee has submitted a duly notarized condonation petition explaining the delay. In the petition, the assessee stated that for the year under consideration, two appeals were filed before the NFAC, as detailed below: 3. The assessee opted

RAICHUR CITY URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,,RAICHUR vs. DIT, BANGALORE

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

ITA 1147/BANG/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Apr 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoshri Laliet Kumarraichur City Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Gunj Road, Raichur-584 102. . Appellant Vs. The Dy. Director Of Income-Tax Intelligence & Criminal Investigation, Bengaluru. . Respondent Appellant By : Shri B.S Sudheendra, C.A Respondent By : Shri G Kamaladar, Standing Counsel

For Appellant: Shri B.S Sudheendra, C.AFor Respondent: Shri G Kamaladar, Standing Counsel
Section 246A(1)Section 253(1)Section 271FSection 283B

144C.] ITA No.1147/ /B/15 [(4) The Assessing Officer or the assessee, as the case may be, on receipt of notice that an appeal against the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) or, as the case may be, the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Assessing Officer in pursuance of the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel has been preferred under sub-section

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

2. There was a delay of 1694 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. The Ld. A.R. filed a petition stating reasons for delay that the assessee came in appeal with regard to two adjustments made in the order. The assessee in exercising abundant option is filing the present appeal against the order giving effect to DRP’s direction

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

2. There was a delay of 1694 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. The Ld. A.R. filed a petition stating reasons for delay that the assessee came in appeal with regard to two adjustments made in the order. The assessee in exercising abundant option is filing the present appeal against the order giving effect to DRP’s direction

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

2. There was a delay of 1694 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. The Ld. A.R. filed a petition stating reasons for delay that the assessee came in appeal with regard to two adjustments made in the order. The assessee in exercising abundant option is filing the present appeal against the order giving effect to DRP’s direction

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

2. There was a delay of 1694 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. The Ld. A.R. filed a petition stating reasons for delay that the assessee came in appeal with regard to two adjustments made in the order. The assessee in exercising abundant option is filing the present appeal against the order giving effect to DRP’s direction

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

2. There was a delay of 1694 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. The Ld. A.R. filed a petition stating reasons for delay that the assessee came in appeal with regard to two adjustments made in the order. The assessee in exercising abundant option is filing the present appeal against the order giving effect to DRP’s direction

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

2. There was a delay of 1694 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. The Ld. A.R. filed a petition stating reasons for delay that the assessee came in appeal with regard to two adjustments made in the order. The assessee in exercising abundant option is filing the present appeal against the order giving effect to DRP’s direction

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

2. There was a delay of 1694 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. The Ld. A.R. filed a petition stating reasons for delay that the assessee came in appeal with regard to two adjustments made in the order. The assessee in exercising abundant option is filing the present appeal against the order giving effect to DRP’s direction

WALVOIL FLUID POWER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TRANSFER PRICING - 2(2)(2), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1620/BANG/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Sri Pavankumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.1620/Bang/2019 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Walvoil Fluid Power India Pvt. Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd., Income Tax, No.19, 2Nd Cross, 2Nd Main, Kiadb, Transfer Pricing 2(2)(2), Attibele Indl. Area, Attibele, Anekal Bangalore. Taluk, Bangalore-562107 Pan: Aaacw 5954E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R.E. Balasubramanyam, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, JCIT (D.R)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154

condoned. 3. The Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the manufacture of control valves and filed the Return of Income on 29.09.2009 with total income of (-) Rs.7,36,89,967. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and Notice under Section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire were issued

FLEXTRONICS TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,TAMILNADU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 832/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Dec 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: S/Shri Ajith Kumar Jain & Siddhesh Chaughale, CAsFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 92Section 92C

144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] by the ACIT, Circle 3(1)(1), Bangalore in relation to assessment year 2012-13. IT(TP)A No.832/Bang/2017 Page 2 of 8 2. There is a delay of 7 days in filing the appeal by the assessee which has been explained as owing to the absence of the Managing

M/S. CRYSTAL GRANITE AND MARBLE PRIVATE LIMITED,RAMANAGARAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and Stay Petition is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 405/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahus.P No.29/Bang/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Rajgopal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Vidya K, JCIT (DR)
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

144C of the Income-tax Act or issuance of notice under section 148 as per time-limit specified in section 149 or sanction under section 151 of the Income-tax Act, and the time limit for completion of such action expires on the 30th day of April, 2021 due to its extension by the said notifications, such time limit shall

MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1498/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaranit(Tp)A No.1498/Bang/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Microchip Technology (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No.149-B, Epip 1St Phase, Income Tax, Industrial Area, Whitefield, Circle – 4(1)(2), Bangalore – 560 066. Bangalore. Pan: Aabcm 9868 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Darpan Kirpalani, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Pradeep Kumar, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 08.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.03.2021

For Appellant: Shri. Darpan Kirpalani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)

Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) in relation to AY 2013-14. 2. There is a delay of 2 days in filing this appeal which has been explained by the assessee as due to the Managing Director of the assessee not being available in Bangalore due to official work. The delay being

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. ENZEN GLOBAL SOLUTIONS PVT LTD , BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 718/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri V Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, JCIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 250

condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the issue on merit. 6. We, first, take up appeal No.696/Bang/2024 for the assessment year 2017-18 7. The grounds raised in ITA No.696/Bang/2023 is reproduced as under:- “1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 21,45,00,000/- made towards premium on preference shares. 2

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BENGALURU vs. ENZEN GLOBAL SOLUTIONS PVT LTD, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 696/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri V Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, JCIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 250

condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the issue on merit. 6. We, first, take up appeal No.696/Bang/2024 for the assessment year 2017-18 7. The grounds raised in ITA No.696/Bang/2023 is reproduced as under:- “1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 21,45,00,000/- made towards premium on preference shares. 2