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.

14 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 271Fclear

Sorted by relevance

Jaipur37Mumbai33Ahmedabad28Delhi23Karnataka21Surat20Pune18Lucknow18Bangalore14Indore13Amritsar9Hyderabad7Nagpur7Chennai7Visakhapatnam6Chandigarh6Kolkata5Patna5Jabalpur3Allahabad3Rajkot2SC1Guwahati1Agra1

Key Topics

Section 271F26Section 10(5)15Penalty11Addition to Income10Section 2717Condonation of Delay7Section 105Exemption5TDS5

METRIC STREAM INFOTECH INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-12(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 501/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Padma Meenakshi, JCIT (D.R)
Section 139(1)Section 271FSection 273B

condoning the delay. The learned counsel for the assessee also drawn our attention to the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of S. Jayanti Vs. ACIT 2015 75 Taxmann.com 248 wherein in the context of penalty under Section 271F

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 4(1)(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S. METRIC STREAM INFOTECH (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, BENGALURU

Section 271(1)(c)4
Section 139(1)3
Section 1483

In the result appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2478/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Apr 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri P.C Khincha, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. R Premi, JCIT-DR
Section 271FSection 273B

delay of one-day is condoned in filing the present appeal by revenue before this Tribunal. 4. The Ld.Sr.DR submitted that present appeal arises out of order passed under section 271F

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

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 (1) or clause

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

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 (1) or clause

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

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 (1) or clause

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

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 (1) or clause

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

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 (1) or clause

RAICHUR CITY URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,,RAICHUR vs. DIT, BANGALORE

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

ITA 1147/BANG/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Apr 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoshri Laliet Kumarraichur City Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Gunj Road, Raichur-584 102. . Appellant Vs. The Dy. Director Of Income-Tax Intelligence & Criminal Investigation, Bengaluru. . Respondent Appellant By : Shri B.S Sudheendra, C.A Respondent By : Shri G Kamaladar, Standing Counsel

For Appellant: Shri B.S Sudheendra, C.AFor Respondent: Shri G Kamaladar, Standing Counsel
Section 246A(1)Section 253(1)Section 271FSection 283B

271F, [Section 271FB,] Section 272AA or Section 272BB; 7. In our view, the filing of an appeal is a statutory right provided by the statute and which is to be exercised by the assessee in the manner as provided by the Act. The Act provides appeal can be filed against the ITA No.1147/ /B/15 10 order u/s 271FA before

GUNTNUR VINAY ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(5), BENGALURU

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

ITA 1828/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Lakshmi, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for department
Section 234ASection 250Section 274Section 69A

section 234A and 234B of the is bad in law and facts and circumstances of the case. 9. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ought to have held that the penalty proceedings-initiated u/s 274 r.w.s 271AAC, 270A(1) r.w.s270A(9)(a), 271A, 271B and 271F of the Act is contrary to law on the facts and circumstances

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

JAYAPPA REDDY,BENGALURU vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU - 1 , BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1331/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2013-14 Sri Jayappa Reddy No.1, Cholanayakanahalli R.T. Nagar Vs. Pcit Bangalore 560 032 Bengaluru-1 Bengaluru Pan No : Agapj9691E Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Prathik, A.R. Respondent By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 19.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2024

For Appellant: Sri Prathik, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 139(1)Section 148Section 263Section 271Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271F

condone the delay in the interest of justice and proceed to decide the matter. 5. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, has received an amount of Rs.1,05,00,000/- as sale consideration vis-à-vis sale of TDR from one builder during the year under consideration. The assessee has sold

SMT. VARALAKSHMI,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 181/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Kashinath, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Bipin C.N., D.R

condone this short delay of 9 days and admit all the three appeals for adjudication. ITA No.179/Bang/2023 (AY 2017-18): 3. First, we will take up ITA No.179/Bang/2023 for the AY 2017- 18 for adjudication. 3.1 Facts of the case are that one Sri T. Chandra was an employee working in KSRTC as skilled worker. He was to take

SMT. VARALAKSHMI,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 180/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Kashinath, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Bipin C.N., D.R

condone this short delay of 9 days and admit all the three appeals for adjudication. ITA No.179/Bang/2023 (AY 2017-18): 3. First, we will take up ITA No.179/Bang/2023 for the AY 2017- 18 for adjudication. 3.1 Facts of the case are that one Sri T. Chandra was an employee working in KSRTC as skilled worker. He was to take

SMT. VARALAKSHMI,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 179/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Kashinath, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Bipin C.N., D.R

condone this short delay of 9 days and admit all the three appeals for adjudication. ITA No.179/Bang/2023 (AY 2017-18): 3. First, we will take up ITA No.179/Bang/2023 for the AY 2017- 18 for adjudication. 3.1 Facts of the case are that one Sri T. Chandra was an employee working in KSRTC as skilled worker. He was to take