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.

9 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 194Hclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai23Delhi16Bangalore9Jaipur8Chennai7Kolkata5Hyderabad3Allahabad3Ahmedabad2Indore2Nagpur2Patna2Telangana1Visakhapatnam1Rajkot1SC1Surat1Lucknow1Chandigarh1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)7Section 143(1)6Deduction6TDS6Disallowance5Limitation/Time-bar5Section 43B4Section 2504Section 194C

SIRI SANJEEVINI PATTINA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI NIYAMAT ,SIRWAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , RAICHUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1386/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Neha Sahay, JCIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 5Section 801

condone the delay in filing the present appeal for A.Y. 2020-21 before this Tribunal. 4. On merits of the case, the Ld.AR submitted that for A.Y. 2017- 18, the only issue disallowed by NFAC is regarding the Page 17 ITA Nos. 1386 & 1387/Bang/2024 commission paid to pigmy agents for not withholding the taxes on the interest paid

4
Condonation of Delay4
Addition to Income4
Section 139(1)3

SIRI SANJEEVINI PATTINA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI NIYAMAT,SIRWAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, RAICHUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1387/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Neha Sahay, JCIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 5Section 801

condone the delay in filing the present appeal for A.Y. 2020-21 before this Tribunal. 4. On merits of the case, the Ld.AR submitted that for A.Y. 2017- 18, the only issue disallowed by NFAC is regarding the Page 17 ITA Nos. 1386 & 1387/Bang/2024 commission paid to pigmy agents for not withholding the taxes on the interest paid

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

condone the delay of 4,900 days in filing the appeal. We now proceed to hear the appeal on merit. 6.12 On merit, we note that the issue has already been decided by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the assessee’s own case for the same assessment year cited above. The order dated 27th July 2021 is placed

THE KARUR VYSYA BANK LTD,BELLARY vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TDS CIRCLE, HUBLI-DHARWAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2886/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Oct 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R.N Siddappapji, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 12ASection 133ASection 194ASection 197ASection 201Section 201(1)

condone the delay in filing appeal before Ld CIT(A). 9. We have noticed earlier that the Ld CIT(A) has also adjudicated the issues on merits. The ld A.R placed his reliance on the following decisions to submit that the non-furnishing of copies of Form No.15G and Form No.15H to the Commissioner of Income tax would not make

M/S. UDAYA RAVI ARECANUT COMPANY,SHIVAMOGGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, SHIMOGA

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

ITA 2336/BANG/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Mar 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2022-23

For Appellant: Sri Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for department
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 194QSection 244ASection 249Section 250

condoning the delay in filing the appeal as the delay was substantial without being the sufficient cause for Delay. The delay was only due to the negligence of the assessee firm. M/s. Udaya Ravi Arecanut Company, Shivamogga Page 6 of 9 8. We have heard the rival submissions & perused the materials available on record. It is undisputed fact that

MUNIYAPPA MUNIRAJU ,BENGALURU vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-2, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1119/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri. Muniyappa Muniraju, Vs. Pr. Cit, No.1/3, 1St Cross, Muni Narasimhaiah Bangalore - 2. Garden, Chocolate Factory Main Road, Btm I Stage, Bangalore – 560 029, Karnataka. Pan : Anjpm 0458 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Muthu Shankar, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 04.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Muthu Shankar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 194CSection 194HSection 263Section 44A

194H of the Act under the head commission which is completely wrong. The learned Counsel further referred to Paper Book Page No. 22 which is submission made before AO in which it has been clarified that Rs.12 lakhs is included in the turnover of Rs.24,50,000/- and assessee is engaged in civil construction contract. After verifying all these facts

M/S. KNOWLEDGE HUT SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-4(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 466/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Knowledge Hut The Deputy Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner No. 10, 14Th Main Road, Of Income Tax, Hosur Sarjapura Road, Circle - 4(3)(1), Bangalore – 560 102. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaecc4762E Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Knowledge Hut The Deputy Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner No. 10, 14Th Main Road, Of Income Tax, Hosur Sarjapura Road, Nfac, Bangalore – 560 102. Delhi. Vs. Pan: Aaecc4762E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca Revenue By : Shri Nischal .B, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 13-09-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-09-2023

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Nischal .B, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 43B

delay is condoned. Page 10 of 15 ITA Nos. 466 & 281/Bang/2023 18. The addition of Rs.15,34,844/- u/s. 194H is the subject matter before us. 19. The brief facts leading to this issue this that the assessee filed its return of income for A.Y. 2018-19 on 28.11.2018 declaring total income at Rs.3,67,36,490/-. The case

M/S. KNOWLEDGE HUT SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, NFAC, DELHI, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 281/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Knowledge Hut The Deputy Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner No. 10, 14Th Main Road, Of Income Tax, Hosur Sarjapura Road, Circle - 4(3)(1), Bangalore – 560 102. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaecc4762E Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Knowledge Hut The Deputy Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner No. 10, 14Th Main Road, Of Income Tax, Hosur Sarjapura Road, Nfac, Bangalore – 560 102. Delhi. Vs. Pan: Aaecc4762E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca Revenue By : Shri Nischal .B, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 13-09-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-09-2023

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Nischal .B, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 43B

delay is condoned. Page 10 of 15 ITA Nos. 466 & 281/Bang/2023 18. The addition of Rs.15,34,844/- u/s. 194H is the subject matter before us. 19. The brief facts leading to this issue this that the assessee filed its return of income for A.Y. 2018-19 on 28.11.2018 declaring total income at Rs.3,67,36,490/-. The case

SRI BALAJI PROMOTERS,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(5), BENGALURU

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

ITA 309/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyassessment Year :2016-17

For Appellant: Shri. Akshay K. S, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S,JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 194H

condone the delay in filing the appeal. 3. Aggrieved by the Assessment Order, assessee filed appeal before the learned CIT(A). Before the learned CIT(A), assessee filed additional evidence which were not considered and learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee observing that the amount paid by the Bacardi India Pvt. Ltd., (BIPL) is fees