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.

234 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 154(7)clear

Sorted by relevance

Patna471Delhi393Mumbai379Chennai300Bangalore234Pune177Kolkata150Karnataka131Nagpur102Hyderabad97Ahmedabad96Jaipur83Visakhapatnam68Chandigarh61Surat58Amritsar49Lucknow43Indore40Calcutta34Cochin31Raipur28Rajkot21Cuttack18Agra16Jodhpur10SC9Guwahati8Jabalpur8Ranchi5Allahabad5Telangana4Panaji4Varanasi4Dehradun1Rajasthan1Orissa1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 15479Section 143(1)74Section 234E49Section 143(3)46Addition to Income43Section 25041Section 80P40Disallowance38Limitation/Time-bar

K. P. NANJUNDI VISHWAKARMA,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU

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

ITA 423/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 May 2024AY 2017-18
Section 132Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 246ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

7 of 30\nnot gain any benefit and for the reasons as stated above the appellant could not file the\npresent appeal within the stipulate time which fact requires to be appreciated by your\nHonor.\n6. It is humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) takes lenient\nand compassionate view and condone the delay in filing

Showing 1–20 of 234 · Page 1 of 12

...
34
Condonation of Delay32
Section 200A30
Deduction29

K. P. NANJUNDI VISHWAKARMA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU

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

ITA 425/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 May 2024AY 2013-14
For Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 246ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

154 and for\nA.Y. 2018-19, the appeal was filed against order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s\n153D.\nII) Penalty appeals for A.Ys. 2013-14, 2015-16 to 2018-19:\nThe penalty orders were passed by the Ld.AO u/s. 274 r.w.s.\n271(1)(c) of the act for A.Y. 2013-14 and 2015-16 to 2016-17.\nFurther

M/S. SJS ENTERPRISES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 972/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year:2017-18

For Appellant: Sri Rony Anthony, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234B

condonation of delay and therefore was unjustified in rejecting the appeal. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) was unreasonable and grossly erred by not considering the merits of the case before rejecting the appeal. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that intimation under section 143(1) of the Act [rectification order under section 154 of the Act dated

JURIMATRIX SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4(3)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 92/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed\Nand\Nshri Keshav Dubey\Nita No.92/Bang/2025\N Assessment Years:2018-19\Njurimatrix Services India Pvt. Ltd.\Ng4, Aspen Building\Nmanyata Embassy Business Park\Nhebbal\Nbangalore 560045\Npan No: Aabcj6157D\Nappellant\Nacit\Nvs. Circle 4(3)(1)\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nappellant By : Sri K.R. Girish, A.R.\Nrespondent By : Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R.\Ndate Of Hearing : 21.04.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement: 15.07.2025\Norder\Nper Keshav Dubey:\Nthis Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against\Nthe Order Of The Ld. Pcit Dated 30.03.2023 Vide Din & Order No.\Nitba/Rev/F/Rev5/2022-23/1051648832(1) Passed U/S 263 Of\Nthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”) For The Assessment\Nyear 2018-19.\N2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:\Ngeneral Grounds Of Appeal\N1.

For Appellant: Sri K.R. Girish, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R
Section 10ASection 115JSection 144Section 156Section 234ASection 234BSection 263Section 270A

7 months.\nAccordingly, the Appellant was prevented from filing an appeal within the\nstatutory deadline. The Company was therefore compelled to file an appeal\nbefore Ld. CIT(A) on the same issues as raised in the rectification application\ndue to inaction by the Ld. AO.\nTherefore, there was a delay of 209 days in filing appeal before

M/S. SREE MINERALS,BELLARY vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, BELLARY

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

ITA 719/BANG/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 May 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, D.R
Section 143Section 143(3)

154 of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short]. Though the said order was served to the assessee on 29.2.2012, the assessee filed appeal before CIT(A) on 27.4.2012. The CIT(A) not condoned the delay in filing the appeal before him on the reason that assessee not adduced any credible reason for delay in filing appeal before

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

154 Taxman 377/280 ITR 357, held that, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in the matter of condonation of delay and the Court should adopt a pragmatic approach and the Court should exercise their discretion on the facts of each case keeping in mind that in construing the Page 5 of 7 expression "sufficient cause" the principle

SRI.INDUDHAR,DAVANGERE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DAVANGERE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2281/BANG/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Shankar,AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V.Sreenivasan, JCIT (D.R)
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

7 “ 41. In the present case, the inordinate delay of approximately more than 1100 days calls for a strict approach and the principles or guidelines given by the Supreme Court in the above- said decision on the conduct that cannot be favourably considered are clearly attracted to the facts of the present case. The further guidelines issued in paragraph

NAVODAYA EDUCATION TRUST,RAICHUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELLARY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 49/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jul 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Kaul, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. Devarathna Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 139Section 143(1)Section 154

7 of 20th Dec 2018, the CBDT directed Commissioners of Income Tax to consider condonation of delays in filing Form 10 for assessment year 2016-17. These directions were subsequently amended vide Circular No 10 of 2019, dated 22nd May 2019, whereby Commissioners of Income Tax were directed to consider condonation of delay for assessment years preceding assessment year

D.K. ASHOK,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2008-09 is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 846/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jan 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri H.N. Khincha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Bijoy Kumar Pnada, Addl. CIT (D.R)
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 244A

condonation of delay there is no loss to revenue as legitimate taxes payable in accordance with law alone would be collected. In the case on hand, we find as per the facts narrated, that the delay of 96 days in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) 7 was mainly due to the assessee pursuing rectification proceedings under section

KARNATAKA BANK LTD,MANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE 1 (1) & TPS, MANGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue fails and is hereby dismissed

ITA 942/BANG/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri S Ananthan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 17

section 154 of the Act the CO . 6.11 In view of the above, we are of the opinion that this is a fit case where the delay should be condoned, regardless of its length. In this case, the Revenue has not filed an affidavit opposing the condonation of delay. This itself is sufficient reason to condone the delay

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

section 249(3) of the Act and it is requested before your Honours to take a lenient and compassionate view and condone the delay of 3,742 days in filing the present appeal and hear the same on merits for the advancement of substantial cause of justice.” 7. In the said application, the assessee had narrated the circumstances

RAJENDRA SINGA DUSHYANTH SINGH ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2) , BANGALORE

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

ITA 989/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Ms. Pooja Maru, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 17

154 Taxman 33 has held as under: It is equally well-settled that where a cause is consciously abandoned (as in the present case) the party seeking condonation has to show by cogent evidence sufficient cause in support of its claim of condonation. The onus is greater. One of the propositions of settled legal position is to ensure that

RAJENDRA SINGA DUSHYANTH SINGH,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2) , BANGALORE

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

ITA 990/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Ms. Pooja Maru, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 17

154 Taxman 33 has held as under: It is equally well-settled that where a cause is consciously abandoned (as in the present case) the party seeking condonation has to show by cogent evidence sufficient cause in support of its claim of condonation. The onus is greater. One of the propositions of settled legal position is to ensure that

INDIRA VELURI,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2513/BANG/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Apr 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Sri Pavan Kumar, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ganesh R Gale, Standing counsel for department
Section 250Section 253(5)

condoning such delay. Accordingly, the ld. PCIT Bangalore-3, held that the delay in filing Form 67 for the AY 2021- 22 is rejected. 12.2 We also take a note of the fact that the main reason as cited by the assessee for not filing the Form 67 on or before the due date of filing the return of income

SRI. M. NAGARAJA,MYSORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 2(1), MYSORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1905/BANG/2019[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Sept 2022AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 1999-2000

For Respondent: Shri S. Parthasarathi
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 234BSection 263

Section 260A of the Act before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka which was on 22.03.2016.” 5. The Ld.AR has filed a fresh affidavit for condonation of delay on 18/11/2018 wherein he has explained the above situation that caused the delay in filing the present appeal before this Tribunal. He also prayed for the same to be condoned

MINDLOGICX INFRATEC LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all these appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 468/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri. Hemanth, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Narayana. K. R, Addl. DIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 154Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 201Section 206CSection 234E

condonation in delay in the appeal, the appeal itself is not maintainable. (iv) Since there was an inordinate delay in filing the appeal and no sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal has been shown by the assessee, the appeal is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay in filing the appeal. 8. For the above

MINDLOGICX INFRATEC LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all these appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 469/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri. Hemanth, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Narayana. K. R, Addl. DIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 154Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 201Section 206CSection 234E

condonation in delay in the appeal, the appeal itself is not maintainable. (iv) Since there was an inordinate delay in filing the appeal and no sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal has been shown by the assessee, the appeal is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay in filing the appeal. 8. For the above

MINDLOGICX INFRATEC LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all these appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 465/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri. Hemanth, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Narayana. K. R, Addl. DIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 154Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 201Section 206CSection 234E

condonation in delay in the appeal, the appeal itself is not maintainable. (iv) Since there was an inordinate delay in filing the appeal and no sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal has been shown by the assessee, the appeal is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay in filing the appeal. 8. For the above

MINDLOGICX INFRATEC LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all these appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 470/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri. Hemanth, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Narayana. K. R, Addl. DIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 154Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 201Section 206CSection 234E

condonation in delay in the appeal, the appeal itself is not maintainable. (iv) Since there was an inordinate delay in filing the appeal and no sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal has been shown by the assessee, the appeal is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay in filing the appeal. 8. For the above

MINDLOGICX INFRATEC LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all these appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 463/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri. Hemanth, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Narayana. K. R, Addl. DIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 154Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 201Section 206CSection 234E

condonation in delay in the appeal, the appeal itself is not maintainable. (iv) Since there was an inordinate delay in filing the appeal and no sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal has been shown by the assessee, the appeal is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay in filing the appeal. 8. For the above