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.

58 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 191clear

Sorted by relevance

Patna150Chennai110Karnataka105Nagpur94Mumbai78Delhi65Bangalore58Cochin38Jaipur33Kolkata32Rajkot20Visakhapatnam16Lucknow14Ahmedabad13Chandigarh13Hyderabad12Pune11Agra8Cuttack6Indore6Surat5Guwahati5Varanasi5Panaji4SC3Allahabad3Raipur2Rajasthan2Punjab & Haryana1Dehradun1Calcutta1Andhra Pradesh1Jodhpur1Amritsar1Telangana1

Key Topics

Section 234E85Section 200A51Condonation of Delay34Section 14731Section 14828Section 25026Addition to Income24TDS23Limitation/Time-bar

M/S. RMZ HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 954/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 234Section 255Section 255(3)Section 36

condone the above delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. The first ground for our consideration is with regard to the disallowance of Rs.99,02,829/-, which is claimed by assessee as an interest payment. The assessee in the year under consideration advanced a sum of Rs.41 crores towards purchase of shares. The AO questioned the sources of Rs.41

Showing 1–20 of 58 · Page 1 of 3

23
Section 153A17
Section 143(3)15
Natural Justice14

SHRI. BORAIAH SHIVANANJAIAH,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 680/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Boraiah Shivananjaiah, Asst.Commissioner Of K. Janatha Colony, Income Tax, Bidadi Hobli, Vs. Circle - 3(2)(1) Ramnagara Dist., Bengaluru Bengaluru Pan – Anaps2762E Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Assessee by Sri Sreehari Kutsa, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43ASection 43B

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. Accordingly, the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 6. Now we will proceed on merits of grounds raised by the assessee. The first ground is with regard to the disallowance of Employees’ Contribution to EPF beyond due date, by invoking Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. In our opinion

M/S. PRAKAT SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1) , BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 567/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri. Ramakrishna Kamat, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, Addl. CIT (DR), ITAT, Bengaluru
Section 200ASection 234ESection 250

section 234E, assessee filed appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA). The appeals were filed before the FAA belatedly. The CIT(A) refused to condone the delay in filing the appeals and dismissed all the appeals. The CIT(A) was of the view that there is a difference between the marginal delay and inordinate delay and referred to various judicial

M/S. PRAKAT SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 533/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri. Ramakrishna Kamat, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, Addl. CIT (DR), ITAT, Bengaluru
Section 200ASection 234ESection 250

section 234E, assessee filed appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA). The appeals were filed before the FAA belatedly. The CIT(A) refused to condone the delay in filing the appeals and dismissed all the appeals. The CIT(A) was of the view that there is a difference between the marginal delay and inordinate delay and referred to various judicial

M/S. PRAKAT SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1) , BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 563/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri. Ramakrishna Kamat, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, Addl. CIT (DR), ITAT, Bengaluru
Section 200ASection 234ESection 250

section 234E, assessee filed appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA). The appeals were filed before the FAA belatedly. The CIT(A) refused to condone the delay in filing the appeals and dismissed all the appeals. The CIT(A) was of the view that there is a difference between the marginal delay and inordinate delay and referred to various judicial

M/S. PRAKAT SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1)(, BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 559/BANG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri. Ramakrishna Kamat, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, Addl. CIT (DR), ITAT, Bengaluru
Section 200ASection 234ESection 250

section 234E, assessee filed appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA). The appeals were filed before the FAA belatedly. The CIT(A) refused to condone the delay in filing the appeals and dismissed all the appeals. The CIT(A) was of the view that there is a difference between the marginal delay and inordinate delay and referred to various judicial

M/S. PRAKAT SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 562/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri. Ramakrishna Kamat, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, Addl. CIT (DR), ITAT, Bengaluru
Section 200ASection 234ESection 250

section 234E, assessee filed appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA). The appeals were filed before the FAA belatedly. The CIT(A) refused to condone the delay in filing the appeals and dismissed all the appeals. The CIT(A) was of the view that there is a difference between the marginal delay and inordinate delay and referred to various judicial

M/S. PRAKAT SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 554/BANG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri. Ramakrishna Kamat, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, Addl. CIT (DR), ITAT, Bengaluru
Section 200ASection 234ESection 250

section 234E, assessee filed appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA). The appeals were filed before the FAA belatedly. The CIT(A) refused to condone the delay in filing the appeals and dismissed all the appeals. The CIT(A) was of the view that there is a difference between the marginal delay and inordinate delay and referred to various judicial

M/S. PRAKAT SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 531/BANG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri. Ramakrishna Kamat, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, Addl. CIT (DR), ITAT, Bengaluru
Section 200ASection 234ESection 250

section 234E, assessee filed appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA). The appeals were filed before the FAA belatedly. The CIT(A) refused to condone the delay in filing the appeals and dismissed all the appeals. The CIT(A) was of the view that there is a difference between the marginal delay and inordinate delay and referred to various judicial

M/S. PRAKAT SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 558/BANG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri. Ramakrishna Kamat, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, Addl. CIT (DR), ITAT, Bengaluru
Section 200ASection 234ESection 250

section 234E, assessee filed appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA). The appeals were filed before the FAA belatedly. The CIT(A) refused to condone the delay in filing the appeals and dismissed all the appeals. The CIT(A) was of the view that there is a difference between the marginal delay and inordinate delay and referred to various judicial

M/S. PRAKAT SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 560/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri. Ramakrishna Kamat, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, Addl. CIT (DR), ITAT, Bengaluru
Section 200ASection 234ESection 250

section 234E, assessee filed appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA). The appeals were filed before the FAA belatedly. The CIT(A) refused to condone the delay in filing the appeals and dismissed all the appeals. The CIT(A) was of the view that there is a difference between the marginal delay and inordinate delay and referred to various judicial

M/S. PRAKAT SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1) , BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 564/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri. Ramakrishna Kamat, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, Addl. CIT (DR), ITAT, Bengaluru
Section 200ASection 234ESection 250

section 234E, assessee filed appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA). The appeals were filed before the FAA belatedly. The CIT(A) refused to condone the delay in filing the appeals and dismissed all the appeals. The CIT(A) was of the view that there is a difference between the marginal delay and inordinate delay and referred to various judicial

M/S. PRAKAT SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 565/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri. Ramakrishna Kamat, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, Addl. CIT (DR), ITAT, Bengaluru
Section 200ASection 234ESection 250

section 234E, assessee filed appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA). The appeals were filed before the FAA belatedly. The CIT(A) refused to condone the delay in filing the appeals and dismissed all the appeals. The CIT(A) was of the view that there is a difference between the marginal delay and inordinate delay and referred to various judicial

M/S. PRAKAT SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 555/BANG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri. Ramakrishna Kamat, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, Addl. CIT (DR), ITAT, Bengaluru
Section 200ASection 234ESection 250

section 234E, assessee filed appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA). The appeals were filed before the FAA belatedly. The CIT(A) refused to condone the delay in filing the appeals and dismissed all the appeals. The CIT(A) was of the view that there is a difference between the marginal delay and inordinate delay and referred to various judicial

M/S. PRAKAT SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 561/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri. Ramakrishna Kamat, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, Addl. CIT (DR), ITAT, Bengaluru
Section 200ASection 234ESection 250

section 234E, assessee filed appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA). The appeals were filed before the FAA belatedly. The CIT(A) refused to condone the delay in filing the appeals and dismissed all the appeals. The CIT(A) was of the view that there is a difference between the marginal delay and inordinate delay and referred to various judicial

M/S. PRAKAT SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 532/BANG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri. Ramakrishna Kamat, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, Addl. CIT (DR), ITAT, Bengaluru
Section 200ASection 234ESection 250

section 234E, assessee filed appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA). The appeals were filed before the FAA belatedly. The CIT(A) refused to condone the delay in filing the appeals and dismissed all the appeals. The CIT(A) was of the view that there is a difference between the marginal delay and inordinate delay and referred to various judicial

M/S. PRAKAT SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1) , BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 556/BANG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri. Ramakrishna Kamat, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, Addl. CIT (DR), ITAT, Bengaluru
Section 200ASection 234ESection 250

section 234E, assessee filed appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA). The appeals were filed before the FAA belatedly. The CIT(A) refused to condone the delay in filing the appeals and dismissed all the appeals. The CIT(A) was of the view that there is a difference between the marginal delay and inordinate delay and referred to various judicial

M/S. PRAKAT SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 566/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri. Ramakrishna Kamat, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, Addl. CIT (DR), ITAT, Bengaluru
Section 200ASection 234ESection 250

section 234E, assessee filed appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA). The appeals were filed before the FAA belatedly. The CIT(A) refused to condone the delay in filing the appeals and dismissed all the appeals. The CIT(A) was of the view that there is a difference between the marginal delay and inordinate delay and referred to various judicial

M/S. PRAKAT SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 3(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 557/BANG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri. Ramakrishna Kamat, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, Addl. CIT (DR), ITAT, Bengaluru
Section 200ASection 234ESection 250

section 234E, assessee filed appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA). The appeals were filed before the FAA belatedly. The CIT(A) refused to condone the delay in filing the appeals and dismissed all the appeals. The CIT(A) was of the view that there is a difference between the marginal delay and inordinate delay and referred to various judicial

THE FINANCE OFFICER ,SHIMOGA DISTRICT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS WARD , DAVANGERE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for asst

ITA 82/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boazita Nos.82 & 83/Bang/2017 (Asst. Year – 2009-10 & 2010-11) The Finance Officer, Kuvempu University, Shankaraghatta, Shimoga District. . Appellant. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Tds Ward, Davangere. . Respondent. Appellant By : Shri Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Padmameenakshi, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 25-9-2017 Date Of Pronouncement : -9-2017

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Padmameenakshi, JCIT
Section 191Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)

condoned the delay in filing the appeal and admitted the appeal and disposed off the same on merits under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 3. Without prejudice to the above, the authorities below failed to appreciate that the total payment of Rs. 1,94,557/- consists of payments made to eight advocates