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.

30 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 234Dclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai52Hyderabad31Bangalore30Delhi26Ahmedabad22Jaipur16Kolkata7Surat7Indore6Chennai5Chandigarh5Nagpur5Pune4Rajkot4Jabalpur2Raipur1Varanasi1Patna1

Key Topics

Section 15430Section 26327Section 54F14Section 14313Condonation of Delay13Section 25011Addition to Income11Limitation/Time-bar11Section 80

M/S. BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1111/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., The Deputy 3Rd Floor, Bmtc Commissioner Of Complex, Income Tax, K H Road, Circle – 1 [1][2], Shanti Nagar, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 027. Pan: Aaacb4881D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sreehari Kutsa, Advocate : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 25-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 26/02/2019 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2010-11 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act In So Far As It Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities & The Facts & Circumstances In The Appellant'S Case. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Is Not Justified In Refusing To Admit The Appeal Of The Appellant On The Grounds That Delay In Filing Of The Appeal Cannot Be Condoned On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri Sreehari Kutsa, Advocate
Section 234BSection 234DSection 250

delay in filing of the appeal cannot be condoned on the facts and circumstances of the case. Page 2 of 11 3. The learned CIT(A) is not justified in dismissing the appeal despite the fact that the merits of the matter were covered by the decision of the jurisdictional Tribunal in the Appellant's own case vide Order dated

Showing 1–20 of 30 · Page 1 of 2

9
Section 234D8
Section 143(3)8
Disallowance8

SHRI. VIRUPAXAPPA SIDDAPPA UDNUR,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(2), BENGALURU

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

ITA 820/BANG/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 234DSection 250

Section 234D of the Act is also bad in law as the period, rate, quantum and method of calculation adopted on which interest is levied are all not discernible and are wrong on the facts of the case. The Appellant craves leave of this Hon'ble Income Tax 6. Appellate Tribunal to add, alter, delete or substitute

ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

ITA 296/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

For Appellant: Shri Jairam Raipura, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Annamalli & Shri Narendra Sharma, A.Rs
Section 154

condone this inordinate delay of 1694 days and the appeal is dismissed unadmitted. Accordingly, we decline to admit the appeal and dismiss the appeal in limine. IT(TP)A No.296, 468 & 1119/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.621 & 694/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A No.1674/Bang/2018 & IT(TP)A No.582/Bang/2021 Page 7 of 34 ITA No.468/Bang/2015 (A.Y. 2010-11) (Assessee’s appeal):- 4. Grounds urged

TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

ITA 468/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

For Appellant: Shri Jairam Raipura, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Annamalli & Shri Narendra Sharma, A.Rs
Section 154

condone this inordinate delay of 1694 days and the appeal is dismissed unadmitted. Accordingly, we decline to admit the appeal and dismiss the appeal in limine. IT(TP)A No.296, 468 & 1119/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.621 & 694/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A No.1674/Bang/2018 & IT(TP)A No.582/Bang/2021 Page 7 of 34 ITA No.468/Bang/2015 (A.Y. 2010-11) (Assessee’s appeal):- 4. Grounds urged

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

ITA 1119/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

For Appellant: Shri Jairam Raipura, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Annamalli & Shri Narendra Sharma, A.Rs
Section 154

condone this inordinate delay of 1694 days and the appeal is dismissed unadmitted. Accordingly, we decline to admit the appeal and dismiss the appeal in limine. IT(TP)A No.296, 468 & 1119/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.621 & 694/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A No.1674/Bang/2018 & IT(TP)A No.582/Bang/2021 Page 7 of 34 ITA No.468/Bang/2015 (A.Y. 2010-11) (Assessee’s appeal):- 4. Grounds urged

M/S. TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU, CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

ITA 582/BANG/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

For Appellant: Shri Jairam Raipura, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Annamalli & Shri Narendra Sharma, A.Rs
Section 154

condone this inordinate delay of 1694 days and the appeal is dismissed unadmitted. Accordingly, we decline to admit the appeal and dismiss the appeal in limine. IT(TP)A No.296, 468 & 1119/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.621 & 694/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A No.1674/Bang/2018 & IT(TP)A No.582/Bang/2021 Page 7 of 34 ITA No.468/Bang/2015 (A.Y. 2010-11) (Assessee’s appeal):- 4. Grounds urged

M/S TEJATS NETWORKS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

ITA 1674/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

For Appellant: Shri Jairam Raipura, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Annamalli & Shri Narendra Sharma, A.Rs
Section 154

condone this inordinate delay of 1694 days and the appeal is dismissed unadmitted. Accordingly, we decline to admit the appeal and dismiss the appeal in limine. IT(TP)A No.296, 468 & 1119/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.621 & 694/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A No.1674/Bang/2018 & IT(TP)A No.582/Bang/2021 Page 7 of 34 ITA No.468/Bang/2015 (A.Y. 2010-11) (Assessee’s appeal):- 4. Grounds urged

TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

ITA 694/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

For Appellant: Shri Jairam Raipura, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Annamalli & Shri Narendra Sharma, A.Rs
Section 154

condone this inordinate delay of 1694 days and the appeal is dismissed unadmitted. Accordingly, we decline to admit the appeal and dismiss the appeal in limine. IT(TP)A No.296, 468 & 1119/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.621 & 694/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A No.1674/Bang/2018 & IT(TP)A No.582/Bang/2021 Page 7 of 34 ITA No.468/Bang/2015 (A.Y. 2010-11) (Assessee’s appeal):- 4. Grounds urged

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

ITA 621/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

For Appellant: Shri Jairam Raipura, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Annamalli & Shri Narendra Sharma, A.Rs
Section 154

condone this inordinate delay of 1694 days and the appeal is dismissed unadmitted. Accordingly, we decline to admit the appeal and dismiss the appeal in limine. IT(TP)A No.296, 468 & 1119/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.621 & 694/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A No.1674/Bang/2018 & IT(TP)A No.582/Bang/2021 Page 7 of 34 ITA No.468/Bang/2015 (A.Y. 2010-11) (Assessee’s appeal):- 4. Grounds urged

SMT. JAYA NAGARAJA,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

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

ITA 1264/BANG/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vikas K. Suryawanshi, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 54F

condoning the delay for filing the appeal, which was due to reasonable cause of wrong professional advise and thereby erred in dismissing the appeal on the facts and circumstances of the case. Page 2 of 5 4. The learned CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the disallowance of claim under section 54F of the Act amounting to Rs.33

FLOWSERVE INDIA CONTROLS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2007-08 is partly allowed

ITA 1277/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C.H.Sundar Rao, CIT (D.R)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

condone the delay in filing this appeal before the Tribunal and admit the appeal for consideration and adjudication. It is ordered accordingly. O R D E R This appeal by the assessee is directed against the final order of assessment passed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') vide order dt.23.9.2011

M/S RAJESH EXPORTS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

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

ITA 340/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Rajesh Exports Ltd., The Assistant No. 4, Batavia Commissioner Chambers, Of Income Tax, Kumara Park Road, Central Circle – Kumara Park East, 1(2), Vs. Bangalore – 560 001. Bangalore. Pan: Aaacr8642N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Surya Tejas, Advocate Revenue By : Shri D.K. Mishra, Cit Dr

For Appellant: Shri Surya Tejas, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 234D

234D of the Act. For these and such other grounds that 16. may be urged at the time of hearing the General Appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed. TOTAL TAX EFFECT Rs. 18,29,25,281/- Page 4 of 15 2. At the outset, the Ld.AR submitted that there is delay of 2 days in filing the present

KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

ITA 370/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Sri V. Narendra Sharma, Ld. AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri Shivanand H. Kalakeri, Ld.CIT
Section 143Section 154Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 36Section 43B

234D interest was levied. Further, the learned assessing officer has stated that in Form 3CD report, an amount of Rs. 52,08,24,535/- was ITA Nos.369 & 370/Bang/2025 M/s. Karnataka Power Corporation Limited Page 5 of 13 disallowed under section 43[b] of the Act towards non- remittance of Gratuity, whereas in the computation statement produced only

KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

ITA 369/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Sri V. Narendra Sharma, Ld. AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri Shivanand H. Kalakeri, Ld.CIT
Section 143Section 154Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 36Section 43B

234D interest was levied. Further, the learned assessing officer has stated that in Form 3CD report, an amount of Rs. 52,08,24,535/- was ITA Nos.369 & 370/Bang/2025 M/s. Karnataka Power Corporation Limited Page 5 of 13 disallowed under section 43[b] of the Act towards non- remittance of Gratuity, whereas in the computation statement produced only

PRACTO TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), BENGALURU, BANGALORE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 311/BANG/2024[AY 2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Feb 2025

Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED (Accountant Member), SHRI KESHAV DUBEY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144C(10)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 153

delay was not attributable to the Appellant but was on account of technical glitch on the income-tax e- filing portal to which the Appellant had no control. 15.2. On facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellant denies its liability to pay interest under section 234A of the Act. 15.3. Without prejudice to the above

SMT C I INDIRA ,DAVANGERE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1), DAVANGERE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2015-16 is

ITA 2439/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Oct 2018AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Smt. R. Mrinalini, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Suryavanshi, Addl. CIT (D.R)
Section 133ASection 143(3)

condone the delay of 65 days in filing this appeal before the Tribunal and admit the appeal for consideration and adjudication. It is accordingly ordered. 5 O R D E R 5. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :- 5. Ground No.1 – Unexplained Gift. 5.1 In this ground, the assessee contends that the learned

SRI. KARUR JAYAPRAKASH,BELLARY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, BELLARY

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

ITA 101/BANG/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Deepika, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Besaganni, Addl.CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 234BSection 234DSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 54F

234D of the Act. 8. Initiation of penalty proceedings tinder section 271(1)(c) of the Act Page 3 of 9 The learned CIT(A) erred in law and facts in upholding initiation of penalty proceedings by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) read with section 274 of the Act. 9. Relief The Appellant prays that directions

SMT. NANDINI B LINGEGOWDA,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

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

ITA 566/BANG/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Smt. Prathibha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. G. Kamaladhar, Standing Counsel
Section 234B

section 234B, 234C & 234D of the Act. 3. During the course of hearing, our attention was invited to the fact that the appeal is filed late by 164 days for which an application of condonation for delay

SHRI. G B SHIVARAJAPPA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4(2)(4), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1056/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Sri.Ravishankar S.V., AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh B.Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 234DSection 250Section 54Section 54F

condone the delay of 4 days in filing this appeal and proceeded to dispose of the appeal on merits. 3. The grounds raised read as follows:- “(1) The order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), 12 Bangalore passed under section 250 of the Act in so far as it is against the Appellant is opposed to law, weight

SPECTRUM CONSULTANTS INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-12(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2008-09 is allowed as indicated above

ITA 1080/BANG/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Aug 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Years : 2008-09 M/S. Spectrum Consultants India Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax, No.5/1, Msrec Road, Circle 12(3), Bangalore – 560 054. Bangalore. Pan : Aabcs 7552 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Sreehari Kutsa, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Vikas Suryavamshi, Add.Cit Date Of Hearing : 16.07.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.08.2019 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Sreehari Kutsa, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Vikas Suryavamshi, Add.CIT
Section 143(3)

delay of 16 days in filing the appeal before Tribunal is to be condoned and we do so. Consequently, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2008-09 is admitted for consideration and adjudication. O R D E R 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are as under:- 3.1 The assessee, a company engaged in the business