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 271Eclear

Sorted by relevance

Pune28Karnataka21Delhi20Jaipur14Kolkata14Ahmedabad11Mumbai11Bangalore9Hyderabad7Chennai6Cochin6Visakhapatnam5Indore4Chandigarh4Rajkot4Amritsar2Surat2Guwahati1SC1Agra1

Key Topics

Section 10(5)15Section 271E9Section 271D8Penalty8Section 2716Section 105Exemption5TDS5Addition to Income5Section 269S

M/S. STATE BANK OF INDIA,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS RANGE - 3, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 2417/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

For Appellant: Shri H. MuralidharaFor Respondent: Shri Manjeet Singh, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10Section 10(5)Section 271

271E, section 271F, section 271FA, section 271FB, section 271G, section 271H, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA or section 272B or subsection (1) or subsection (1A) of section 272BB or sub- section (1) of section 272BBB or clause (b) of sub-section

2
Section 269T2
Section 2492

M/S. STATE BANK OF INDIA,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS RANGE- 3, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 2413/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

For Appellant: Shri H. MuralidharaFor Respondent: Shri Manjeet Singh, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10Section 10(5)Section 271

271E, section 271F, section 271FA, section 271FB, section 271G, section 271H, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA or section 272B or subsection (1) or subsection (1A) of section 272BB or sub- section (1) of section 272BBB or clause (b) of sub-section

M/S. STATE BANK OF INDIA,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS RANGE - 3, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 2415/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

For Appellant: Shri H. MuralidharaFor Respondent: Shri Manjeet Singh, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10Section 10(5)Section 271

271E, section 271F, section 271FA, section 271FB, section 271G, section 271H, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA or section 272B or subsection (1) or subsection (1A) of section 272BB or sub- section (1) of section 272BBB or clause (b) of sub-section

M/S. STATE BANK OF INDIA,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS RANGE- 3, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 2416/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

For Appellant: Shri H. MuralidharaFor Respondent: Shri Manjeet Singh, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10Section 10(5)Section 271

271E, section 271F, section 271FA, section 271FB, section 271G, section 271H, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA or section 272B or subsection (1) or subsection (1A) of section 272BB or sub- section (1) of section 272BBB or clause (b) of sub-section

M/S. STATE BANK OF INDIA,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS RANGE - 3, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 2414/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

For Appellant: Shri H. MuralidharaFor Respondent: Shri Manjeet Singh, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10Section 10(5)Section 271

271E, section 271F, section 271FA, section 271FB, section 271G, section 271H, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA or section 272B or subsection (1) or subsection (1A) of section 272BB or sub- section (1) of section 272BBB or clause (b) of sub-section

MANJUNATH SEENAPPA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 5/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Shyanbog, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S,, JCIT (DR)
Section 271E

section 271E of the Act was not received by him. Consequently, the delay of 160 days in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) occurred. 3. The learned AR before us submitted that the assessee is a non- qualified person working as a driver. Due to personal difficulties, he had to change his address. However, the order was delivered

MS.DIVYA S RAO ,MYSORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

In the result appeals filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 2384/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Nov 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S Sundar Rajan, Addl. CIT
Section 144Section 148Section 234Section 249Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

condonation of delay under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 3. The learned CIT[A] is not justified in holding that the appeal filed was not maintainable being hit by the provisions of section 249[4][b] of the Act as the appellant had not paid amount in equivalent to the Advance-tax without appreciating

PRIYADARSHINI ULAVEESH KASETTY PATEL ,SHIVAMOGGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, SHIVAMOGGA

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

ITA 1088/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Varun Bhat, CA
Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

section 269T would not be applicable to the facts of the case and hence the penalty u/s. 271E could not be levied. The AO confirmed the penalties. As against the said orders, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and raised several grounds. 4. The assessee had not appeared before the Ld.CIT(A) in spite of four notices

PRIYADARSHINI ULAVEESH KASETTY PATEL ,SHIVAMOGGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, SHIVAMOGGA

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

ITA 1089/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Varun Bhat, CA
Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

section 269T would not be applicable to the facts of the case and hence the penalty u/s. 271E could not be levied. The AO confirmed the penalties. As against the said orders, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and raised several grounds. 4. The assessee had not appeared before the Ld.CIT(A) in spite of four notices