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.

282 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 147clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai979Chennai770Delhi629Ahmedabad505Hyderabad466Kolkata466Pune381Surat285Bangalore282Jaipur274Indore173Chandigarh167Visakhapatnam158Karnataka150Nagpur132Rajkot113Amritsar106Cochin101Patna92Lucknow91Raipur84Agra62Cuttack58Calcutta45Panaji43Guwahati38Jabalpur37Allahabad28Dehradun26Jodhpur18Varanasi16SC8Telangana6Ranchi5Himachal Pradesh3Andhra Pradesh2Orissa2Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 14797Section 14887Addition to Income63Section 143(3)47Section 25046Section 14437Section 234E35Condonation of Delay31Limitation/Time-bar

THE KARNATAKA CHEMISTS & DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION®,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 702/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 147Section 20Section 202Section 249(3)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

147 17.03.2022 16.04.2022 06.01.2023 265 2014-15 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B Penalty u/s 20.09.2022 20.10.2022 06.10.2023 351 271(1)(b) Penalty u/s 20.09.2022 20.10.2022 01.10.2023 346 271(1)(c) 3.2 He submitted that the assessee has filed condonation petition for quantum proceedings upon receiving deficiency letter and no ITA Nos.699 to 704/Bang/2024 The Karnataka Chemists & Druggists Association, Bangalore Page

Showing 1–20 of 282 · Page 1 of 15

...
24
Section 143(2)23
Section 200A21
Disallowance20

THE KARNATAKA CHEMISTS & DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION®,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 700/BANG/2024[2013-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jun 2024AY 2013-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 147Section 20Section 202Section 249(3)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

147 17.03.2022 16.04.2022 06.01.2023 265 2014-15 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B Penalty u/s 20.09.2022 20.10.2022 06.10.2023 351 271(1)(b) Penalty u/s 20.09.2022 20.10.2022 01.10.2023 346 271(1)(c) 3.2 He submitted that the assessee has filed condonation petition for quantum proceedings upon receiving deficiency letter and no ITA Nos.699 to 704/Bang/2024 The Karnataka Chemists & Druggists Association, Bangalore Page

THE KARNATAKA CHEMISTS & DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION®,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 704/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 147Section 20Section 202Section 249(3)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

147 17.03.2022 16.04.2022 06.01.2023 265 2014-15 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B Penalty u/s 20.09.2022 20.10.2022 06.10.2023 351 271(1)(b) Penalty u/s 20.09.2022 20.10.2022 01.10.2023 346 271(1)(c) 3.2 He submitted that the assessee has filed condonation petition for quantum proceedings upon receiving deficiency letter and no ITA Nos.699 to 704/Bang/2024 The Karnataka Chemists & Druggists Association, Bangalore Page

THE KARNATAKA CHEMISTS & DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION®,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 703/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 147Section 20Section 202Section 249(3)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

147 17.03.2022 16.04.2022 06.01.2023 265 2014-15 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B Penalty u/s 20.09.2022 20.10.2022 06.10.2023 351 271(1)(b) Penalty u/s 20.09.2022 20.10.2022 01.10.2023 346 271(1)(c) 3.2 He submitted that the assessee has filed condonation petition for quantum proceedings upon receiving deficiency letter and no ITA Nos.699 to 704/Bang/2024 The Karnataka Chemists & Druggists Association, Bangalore Page

BETHALA PETROPACKS PVT LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS DEEPAK EXTRUSIONS PVT LTD.,),BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

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

ITA 281/BANG/2024[2012-23]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 May 2024AY 2012-23

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 68

Section 1 2012-13 144 2 2012-13 147* 3 2013-14 144 4 2014-15 144 5 2015-16 143(3)* (not ex- parte) 7.2 However, all the orders of CIT(A) passed for all these assessment years are ex-parte without participation of assessee, wherein he has not condoned the delay

BETHALA PETROPACKS PVT LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS DEEPAK EXTRUSIONS PVT LTD.,),BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OFFICER, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4) , BENGALURU

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

ITA 282/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 68

Section 1 2012-13 144 2 2012-13 147* 3 2013-14 144 4 2014-15 144 5 2015-16 143(3)* (not ex- parte) 7.2 However, all the orders of CIT(A) passed for all these assessment years are ex-parte without participation of assessee, wherein he has not condoned the delay

BETHALA PETROPACKS PVT LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS DEEPAK EXTRUSIONS PVT LTD.,),BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4) , BENGALURU

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

ITA 280/BANG/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 68

Section 1 2012-13 144 2 2012-13 147* 3 2013-14 144 4 2014-15 144 5 2015-16 143(3)* (not ex- parte) 7.2 However, all the orders of CIT(A) passed for all these assessment years are ex-parte without participation of assessee, wherein he has not condoned the delay

BETHALA PETROPACKS PVT LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS DEEPAK EXTRUSIONS PVT LTD.,),BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4) , BENGALURU

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

ITA 283/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 68

Section 1 2012-13 144 2 2012-13 147* 3 2013-14 144 4 2014-15 144 5 2015-16 143(3)* (not ex- parte) 7.2 However, all the orders of CIT(A) passed for all these assessment years are ex-parte without participation of assessee, wherein he has not condoned the delay

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(2)(3), BANGALORE vs. SRI MADE GOWDA THIBBE GOWDA, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and CO of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 910/BANG/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri H. Guruswamy, ITP & Shri Ravi Kiran, CAFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 131Section 148

Condonation of delay if any. The Ground No. 2 of the Revenue's Appeal is liable to be dismissed since the Ld. CIT(A) was justified to hold that the AO did not have any information except information received from the Investigation Wing. 3. The Ground No.3 of the Revenue's Appeal is liable to be dismissed since the statement

ASST. CIT, BANGALORE vs. SRI. M.R. SEETHARAMA (INDL), BANGALORE

In the result, both Revenue’s appeal and the assessee's C

ITA 926/BANG/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Respondent: Shri Anurag Sahay, CIT-III (D.R)
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

147 did not exist and thereby issuing the notice under section 148 was not present under the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. Without prejudice if at all any reasons are recorded by the learned assessing officer, though the same was not furnished to the Respondent / Cross Objector the said reasons utmost may be considered and regarded as reason

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

section 68.” 20 of page 24 ITA No.405/Bang/2023 S.P No.29/Bang/2023 N. As regards, without prejudice to the above, the learned AO has erred in holding that the appellant has failed to respond to the notice u/s 148 dated 30.06.2021 where the return of income was duly submitted. The delay in filing the return was due to the technical issues

M/S. NITESH ESTATES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 5(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed on legal issue raised in ground no

ITA 1486/BANG/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Nitesh Estates The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner Of Nitesh Time Square, Income Tax, 7Th Floor, #8, M.G. Road, Circle – 5 [1][2], Bangalore – 560 001. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aabcn9267C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate : Shri Sankar Ganesh K, Jcit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 04-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 28/03/2019 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-5, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2009-10 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant Are Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Order Of Re-Assessment Is Bad In Law & Void-Ab- Initio For Want Of Requisite Jurisdiction Especially, The Mandatory Requirements To Assume Jurisdiction U/S 148 Of The Act Did Not Exist & Have Not Been Complied With & Consequently, The Re-Assessment Requires To Be Cancelled. 3. The Learned Cit[A] Ought To Have Appreciated That There Was No Fresh Material To Show That Income Had Escaped Assessment Especially When There Was A Scrutiny

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234

condone the delay of 10 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. Accordingly the appeal filed by assessee stands admitted to be adjudicated on issues raised. Page 6 of 17 7. Ground No.2: The Ld.AR at the outset stressed on ground 2 wherein the jurisdiction of issue of notice under section 148 of the Act, has been challenged

SHRI K MEHFUZ ALI KHAN ,BELLARY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

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

ITA 922/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A. K. Garodia

For Appellant: Shri. Lakshmi Narayanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. V. Arvind, Sr. Standing Counsel for Department
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

condoning the delay before the CIT(A). 4. Though the learned Counsel for the assessee has emphatically argued that in the hands of the assessee, the AO has made an addition on protective basis and substantive addition made in the case of G. Janardhan Reddy and in the case of G. Janardhan Reddy, the substantive addition was deleted

SHRI K.MEHFUZ ALI KHAN ,BELLARY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

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

ITA 921/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A. K. Garodia

For Appellant: Shri. Lakshmi Narayanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. V. Arvind, Sr. Standing Counsel for Department
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

condoning the delay before the CIT(A). 4. Though the learned Counsel for the assessee has emphatically argued that in the hands of the assessee, the AO has made an addition on protective basis and substantive addition made in the case of G. Janardhan Reddy and in the case of G. Janardhan Reddy, the substantive addition was deleted

SHRI K MEHFUZ ALI KHAN ,BELLARY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

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

ITA 920/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A. K. Garodia

For Appellant: Shri. Lakshmi Narayanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. V. Arvind, Sr. Standing Counsel for Department
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

condoning the delay before the CIT(A). 4. Though the learned Counsel for the assessee has emphatically argued that in the hands of the assessee, the AO has made an addition on protective basis and substantive addition made in the case of G. Janardhan Reddy and in the case of G. Janardhan Reddy, the substantive addition was deleted

SHRI K MEHFUZ ALI KHAN ,BELLARY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

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

ITA 923/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A. K. Garodia

For Appellant: Shri. Lakshmi Narayanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. V. Arvind, Sr. Standing Counsel for Department
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

condoning the delay before the CIT(A). 4. Though the learned Counsel for the assessee has emphatically argued that in the hands of the assessee, the AO has made an addition on protective basis and substantive addition made in the case of G. Janardhan Reddy and in the case of G. Janardhan Reddy, the substantive addition was deleted

SHRI K.MEHFUZ ALI KHAN ,BELLARY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

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

ITA 919/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A. K. Garodia

For Appellant: Shri. Lakshmi Narayanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. V. Arvind, Sr. Standing Counsel for Department
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

condoning the delay before the CIT(A). 4. Though the learned Counsel for the assessee has emphatically argued that in the hands of the assessee, the AO has made an addition on protective basis and substantive addition made in the case of G. Janardhan Reddy and in the case of G. Janardhan Reddy, the substantive addition was deleted

M/S BANDANTHAMMA MATHU KALAMMA TRUST ,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

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

ITA 1761/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Manjeet Singh, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2

condonation of delay in seeking registration was not available." 5.2 This clearly goes to prove that the first proviso to section 12A(2) was brought in the statute only as a retrospective effect with a view not to affect genuine charitable trusts and societies carrying on genuine charitable objects in the earlier years and substantive conditions stipulated in section

M/S BANDANTHAMMA MATHU KALAMMA TRUST ,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

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

ITA 1765/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Manjeet Singh, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2

condonation of delay in seeking registration was not available." 5.2 This clearly goes to prove that the first proviso to section 12A(2) was brought in the statute only as a retrospective effect with a view not to affect genuine charitable trusts and societies carrying on genuine charitable objects in the earlier years and substantive conditions stipulated in section

M/S BANDANTHAMMA MATHU KALAMMA TRUST ,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

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

ITA 1763/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Manjeet Singh, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2

condonation of delay in seeking registration was not available." 5.2 This clearly goes to prove that the first proviso to section 12A(2) was brought in the statute only as a retrospective effect with a view not to affect genuine charitable trusts and societies carrying on genuine charitable objects in the earlier years and substantive conditions stipulated in section