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.

8 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 206C(6)clear

Sorted by relevance

Raipur39Chennai38Pune19Delhi16Cochin13Kolkata12Panaji10Rajkot9Dehradun8Bangalore8Jodhpur5Jaipur4Mumbai4Amritsar3Indore3Hyderabad3Ahmedabad1Lucknow1

Key Topics

Section 234E32Section 271H32Section 200A16Section 153C12Section 143(3)9TDS8Condonation of Delay8Addition to Income7Section 139(1)

ROOMAN TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)& TDS, BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 536/BANG/2025[2015-16 Q 3]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Vinod Gard, CAFor Respondent: Shri. R. Rajamanohar, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 2Section 200ASection 234ESection 271(1)(a)Section 271H

delay in filing the appeal which is as under: 3. On going through the above condonation petition that the assessee had reasonable cause for not to file appeal within the speicified date and the reasons have been explained. Therefore, relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji

6
Section 1326
Section 271(1)(a)4
Penalty4

ROOMAN TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 533/BANG/2025[2015-16 Q4]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Vinod Gard, CAFor Respondent: Shri. R. Rajamanohar, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 2Section 200ASection 234ESection 271(1)(a)Section 271H

delay in filing the appeal which is as under: 3. On going through the above condonation petition that the assessee had reasonable cause for not to file appeal within the speicified date and the reasons have been explained. Therefore, relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji

ROOMAN TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD., ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 534/BANG/2025[2015-16 Q1]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Vinod Gard, CAFor Respondent: Shri. R. Rajamanohar, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 2Section 200ASection 234ESection 271(1)(a)Section 271H

delay in filing the appeal which is as under: 3. On going through the above condonation petition that the assessee had reasonable cause for not to file appeal within the speicified date and the reasons have been explained. Therefore, relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji

ROOMAN TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1),, BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 535/BANG/2025[2015-16 Q2]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Vinod Gard, CAFor Respondent: Shri. R. Rajamanohar, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 2Section 200ASection 234ESection 271(1)(a)Section 271H

delay in filing the appeal which is as under: 3. On going through the above condonation petition that the assessee had reasonable cause for not to file appeal within the speicified date and the reasons have been explained. Therefore, relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji

M/S. CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER,SHIVAMOGGA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD, DAVANGERE

The appeals are partly allowed to the aforesaid extent

ITA 882/BANG/2023[26Q/Quarter-4/2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jan 2024

Bench: Shri George George Kshri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Pai, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Nischal B, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 250

condone the delay in filing the appeal after relying on the above judgment. ITA Nos.882-890/Bang/2023 Page 10 of 17 19. Coming to the merit of the case, the sole issue involved in all these appeals are with regard to dismissing the appeal of the assessee by the CIT(A) for challenging the fee imposed u/s 234(E) for delay

MR. SALEEM THANGAL KADER PALKAD,UDUPI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDUPI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 539/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Parthivel, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115BSection 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 69

6 of 17 “ii. The appellant is preferring to argue the appeals on the limited ground of the return of income being defective and the recourse available to the assessing officer in processing a defective return of income. The remaining grounds of appeal may be deemed to be academic and not withdrawn, in the interest of justice and equity

MR. SALEEM THANGAL KADER PLAKAD,INDIVIDUAL,UDUPI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 540/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Parthivel, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115BSection 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 69

6 of 17 “ii. The appellant is preferring to argue the appeals on the limited ground of the return of income being defective and the recourse available to the assessing officer in processing a defective return of income. The remaining grounds of appeal may be deemed to be academic and not withdrawn, in the interest of justice and equity

MR. SALEEM THANGAL KADER PLAKAD,INDIVIDUAL,UDUPI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 541/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Parthivel, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115BSection 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 69

6 of 17 “ii. The appellant is preferring to argue the appeals on the limited ground of the return of income being defective and the recourse available to the assessing officer in processing a defective return of income. The remaining grounds of appeal may be deemed to be academic and not withdrawn, in the interest of justice and equity