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 234clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai79Bangalore58Chennai56Delhi46Pune34Ahmedabad24Jaipur21Kolkata19Hyderabad16Chandigarh9Indore9Nagpur9Amritsar7Cuttack7Guwahati6Surat6Jodhpur4Rajkot3SC3Visakhapatnam2Panaji2Patna2Ranchi2Jabalpur1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Cochin1Agra1Lucknow1

Key Topics

Section 23434Section 25033Addition to Income33Section 1127Section 143(1)25Section 69A24Section 80P23Deduction20Section 12A19

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

234-B of the Act, which under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case deserves to be cancelled. 5. For the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal, your appellant humbly prays that the appeal may be allowed and Justice rendered and the appellant may be awarded

Showing 1–20 of 58 · Page 1 of 3

Section 139(1)17
Condonation of Delay16
Disallowance14

SHRI. G K RAVI,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

ITA 2269/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

234/-\n| 2019-20\n| 143(3) did.\n27.09.2021\n| 1,01,56,742/-\n| 1,93,23,032\n| 2,92,59,772/-\n\n5.0 The appeals for the relevant AYs have been filed with a substantial delay\nand the reasons to condone the delay have been reproduced in per para 2.0 above.\n\n5.1 noted that the above

SHRI. G K RAVI,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4) , BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

ITA 2266/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

234/-\n2019-20\n143(3) did.\n27.09.2021\n1,01,56,742/-\n1,93,23,032\n2,92,59,772/-\n5.0 The appeals for the relevant AYs have been filed with a substantial delay\nand the reasons to condone the delay have been reproduced in per para 2.0 above.\n5.1 As noted that the above delay in filing of appeal comes

SHRI. G K RAVI,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

ITA 2265/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

234/- |\n| 2019-20 | 143(3) did.\n27.09.2021 | 1,01,56,742/- | 1,93,23,032 | 2,92,59,772/- |\n\n5.0 The appeals for the relevant AYs have been filed with a substantial delay\nand the reasons to condone the delay have been reproduced in per para 2.0 above.\n\n[NOTARY seal has been scanned]\n\nOSARDS noted

GOTTIGERE KRISHNAPPA RAVI,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

ITA 1159/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

234/-\n2019-20\n143(3) did.\n27.09.2021\n1,01,56,742/-\n1,93,23,032\n2,92,59,772/-\n5.0\nThe appeals for the relevant AYs have been filed with a substantial delay\nand the reasons to condone the delay have been reproduced in per para 2.0 above.\nOSARDS noted that the above delay in filing of appeal comes within

SHRI. G K RAVI,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

ITA 2267/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

234/-\n2019-20\n143(3) did.\n27.09.2021\n1,01,56,742/-\n1,93,23,032\n2,92,59,772/-\n5.0\nThe appeals for the relevant AYs have been filed with a substantial delay\nand the reasons to condone the delay have been reproduced in per para 2.0 above.\nOSARDS noted that the above delay in filing of appeal comes within

SHRI. G K RAVI,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

ITA 2268/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

234/- |\n| 2019-20 | 143(3) did.\n27.09.2021 | 1,01,56,742/- | 1,93,23,032 | 2,92,59,772/- |\n\n5.0 The appeals for the relevant AYs have been filed with a substantial delay\nand the reasons to condone the delay have been reproduced in per para 2.0 above.\n\nSARDS noted that the above delay in filing

SHRI. G. K RAVI ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT/DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

ITA 2264/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

234/-\n2019-20\n143(3) did.\n27.09.2021\n1,01,56,742/-\n1,93,23,032\n2,92,59,772/-\n\n5.0 The appeals for the relevant AYs have been filed with a substantial delay\nand the reasons to condone the delay have been reproduced in per para 2.0 above.\n\nSARDS noted that the above delay in filing of appeal

APOLLO EDUCATION TRUST,BANGALORE vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1212/BANG/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Sept 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V. Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Sri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 234Section 68

condoned the delay in filing the appeal and admitted the appeal and thereby ought to have adjudicated the grounds raised by the appellant in the interest of Justice and equity, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. Without prejudice, the appellant denies itself liable to be taxed on the income of Rs.1,15,66,754/- as against

APOLLO EDUCATION TRUST,BANGALORE vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1213/BANG/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Sept 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V. Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Sri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 234Section 68

condoned the delay in filing the appeal and admitted the appeal and thereby ought to have adjudicated the grounds raised by the appellant in the interest of Justice and equity, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. Without prejudice, the appellant denies itself liable to be taxed on the income of Rs.1,15,66,754/- as against

APOLLO EDUCATION TRUST,BANGALORE vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1214/BANG/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Sept 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V. Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Sri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 234Section 68

condoned the delay in filing the appeal and admitted the appeal and thereby ought to have adjudicated the grounds raised by the appellant in the interest of Justice and equity, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. Without prejudice, the appellant denies itself liable to be taxed on the income of Rs.1,15,66,754/- as against

APOLLO EDUCATION TRUST,BANGALORE vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1215/BANG/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Sept 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V. Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Sri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 234Section 68

condoned the delay in filing the appeal and admitted the appeal and thereby ought to have adjudicated the grounds raised by the appellant in the interest of Justice and equity, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. Without prejudice, the appellant denies itself liable to be taxed on the income of Rs.1,15,66,754/- as against

M/S. MULTI TEK INTERIOR SOLUTIONS ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4) , BENGALURU

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

ITA 894/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Sri Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R
Section 234Section 250Section 40Section 44A

section 234 A, 234 B and 234 C of the Act is also bad in law as the period, rate, quantum and method of calculation adopted by the learned assessing officer on which interest is levied are not discernible and are wrong on the facts of the case. 12. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute or delete

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

M/S. THE BHAVASARA KSHATRIYA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,MYSURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), MYSURU

ITA 981/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jan 2024AY 2017-18
Section 143Section 234Section 80P

sections": [ "250", "234-A", "234-B", "270A", "143(3)", "80P", "80P(2)(a)(i)", "80P(2)(d)", "56", "263", "234A", "234B", "234C", "57" ], "issues": "1. Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned

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

YASHODA PUTTARAJU JAYANTHKUMAR ,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1) , MYSORE

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

ITA 830/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Tharun Kothari, CAFor Respondent: Standing Counsel for Department
Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 234Section 249(3)

condoned the delay by exercising the powers conferred under section 249(3) of the Act, on the facts and circumstances of the case. c. The dismissal of the appeal on delay has resulted in collection of taxes on income which has not been earned by the appellant, thus, defeating the basic tenets of the taxation law, on the facts

BALAPPA HANAMANTAPPANANDEPPANAVAR ,BAGALKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , BAGALKOT

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

ITA 1588/BANG/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Nov 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 234Section 249(3)Section 254

condoned the delay by exercising the powers conferred under section 249(3) of the Act, on the facts and circumstances of the case. c. The learned CIT(A) should have provided another opportunity of hearing in the interest of natural justice before dismissing the appeal, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. Grounds on merits of the matter

SHRI. B.L. NAGENDRA PRASAD,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(3), BENGALURU

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

ITA 1045/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT DR
Section 115BSection 250Section 69A

section 234 B of the Act is also bad in law as the period, rate, quantum and method of calculation adopted by the learned assessing officer on which interest is levied are not discernible and are wrong on the facts of the case. 11. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute or delete

LORD VENKATESHWARA LADIES EDUCATIONAL AND WELFARE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS WARD-1 , BANGALORE

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

ITA 616/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Lord Venkateshwara Ladies Vs. Ito (Exemption), Educational & Welfare Trust, Ward –1, No.1696, Bengaluru. 5Th ‘A’ Cross, Banashankari 1St Stage, Bengaluru – 560 080. Pan : Aaatl 6403 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Ravishankar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. V. Parithivel, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 30.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.12.2023

For Appellant: Shri. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. V. Parithivel, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 250

delay in filing From No. 10 as per the CBDT Circular No. 30/2019, dated 17/12/2019, as a natural corollary even the return of income filed by the appellant is also deemed to have been condoned. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] and the learned assessing officer failed to appreciate that the non-filing of the return within