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.

5 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 26Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai15Mumbai14Jaipur13Indore13Kolkata7Surat6Bangalore5Cochin5Varanasi3Hyderabad3Raipur3Pune2Chandigarh2Nagpur2Cuttack2Delhi2Amritsar1Ahmedabad1

Key Topics

Section 4012Section 201(1)6Section 2014TDS3Addition to Income3Deduction3Section 143(1)2Section 194A(3)(iii)2Disallowance

M/S VIJAYA BANK LIMITED ,HAVERI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS WARD , DAVANGERE

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

ITA 1555/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Omar Abdullah S.M., CAFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 194A(3)(iii)Section 201Section 201(1)

condoning the delay for appeal despite reasonable and sufficient cause. 5. The Ld. AO erred in treating the appellant as an assessee-in-default u/s. 201(1) of the Act for non-deduction of tax at source and the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the same. 6. The Ld. AO erred in treating the appellant as an assessee

VIJAYA BANK LTD.,HAVERI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) WARD, DAVANGERE

2
Limitation/Time-bar2

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

ITA 1556/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Omar Abdullah S.M., CAFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 194A(3)(iii)Section 201Section 201(1)

condoning the delay for appeal despite reasonable and sufficient cause. 5. The Ld. AO erred in treating the appellant as an assessee-in-default u/s. 201(1) of the Act for non-deduction of tax at source and the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the same. 6. The Ld. AO erred in treating the appellant as an assessee

SHRI. KHADARI SYYEADHUSENPEERA SYYEADKHAJAAMIN,BAGALKOT vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL PROCESSING CENTRE, , BENGALURU

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1172/BANG/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jan 2023AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 143(1)Section 201Section 250Section 40

condonation of delay. Being so, we refrain from going into other grounds of appeal on merits. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed in limine. Hence, he submitted that this appeal of the assessee is to be dismissed in limine. 7. I heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The assessee

MUNIVENKATAPPA SHIVANNA,BANGALORE vs. ACIT CIRCLE-7(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 358/BANG/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2014-15 Shri. Munivenkatappa Shivanna, Vs. Acit, Prop: Maruthi Manunath Travels, Circle – 7(2)(1), No.208/1, Idasarahalli Kempegowda Bengaluru. Main Road, Dasarahalli Near Aswath Katte, Bengaluru City – 560 027. Pan : Bixps 0619 B Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Adam Kajabee, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing : 23.08.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.08.2021 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 14.09.2017 Of Cit(A)-7, Bengaluru, In Relation To Ay 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Is An Individual Engaged In The Business Of Running Vehicles On Hire. The Assessee Paid A Sum Of Rs.5,75,710 As Interest On Loans Borrowed From A Non-Banking Finance Company M/S.Cholmandalam Investments & Finance Co.Ltd. The Assessee Did Not Deduct Tax At Source As Was Required By The Provisions Of Sec.194A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ["The Act"] The Ao Therefore Added A Sum Of Rs.5,75,710 To The Total Income Of The Assessee For Non-Deduction Of Tax At Source By Invoking The Page 2 Of 7 Provisions Of Section 40(A)(Ia) Of The Act, Which Lays Down That Where Tax Is Deductible On A Payment & Tax Is Not So Deducted, Then The Sum In Respect Of Which Tax Is Not Deducted At Source, If It Is Claimed As Expenditure In Computing Income From Business, The Same Will Not Be Allowed As A Deduction, While Computing The Income From Business. The Ao Accordingly Made The Impugned Disallowance & Addition To The Total Income U/S. 40(A)(Ia) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri. Adam Kajabee, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 139Section 194ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 40

26A and certificate of accountant under first proviso to sub section (1) of section 201 of the I.T. Act, 1961, which is an exception to the deduction of taxes at source. The said certificate was received after 31g December 2016. This contention of the appellant has been considered. It could be a reasonable proposition and also according to judicial decisions

KHAJIABDUL KARIMSAB ANWAR BHASHA,CHITRADURGA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), DAVENGERE

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

ITA 575/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Phani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT
Section 194CSection 226(3)

condone the delay in filing the appeal and proceed to adjudicate the matter on merits. . SA No.38/Bang/2025 Page 4 of 6 On the merits of the case: 6. We observe that the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte as there was no representation from the assessee. While it is true that the assessee did not appear before