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.

10 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 272A(1)(d)clear

Sorted by relevance

Surat50Chennai41Ahmedabad34Visakhapatnam30Mumbai26Pune24Lucknow20Indore17Cuttack16Kolkata15Hyderabad13Cochin11Bangalore10Delhi10Panaji10Patna9Rajkot8Jaipur7Amritsar6Chandigarh6Agra3Jabalpur3Raipur3SC2Jodhpur1Ranchi1Allahabad1Guwahati1Varanasi1Nagpur1

Key Topics

Section 234E32Section 271H32Section 200A16Condonation of Delay8Addition to Income7TDS6Penalty6Section 1485Section 271(1)(a)

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

D E R PER BENCH All these appeals are filed by the assessee against the separate orders passed by the CIT(A), which is as under:- ITA Nos.882-890/Bang/2023 Page 2 of 17 S.No. ITA Nos. Asst. Year 1 882/Bang/2023 2014-15 2 883/Bang/2023 2014-15 3 884/Bang/2023 2014-15 4 885/Bang/2023 2015-16 5 886/Bang/2023 2015-16 6 887/Bang/2023

ROOMAN TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

4
Section 24
Section 272A(2)(e)3
Section 249(4)2
ITA 533/BANG/2025[2015-16 Q4]Status: Disposed
ITAT Bangalore
23 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Vinod Gard, CAFor Respondent: Shri. R. Rajamanohar, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 2Section 200ASection 234ESection 271(1)(a)Section 271H

delay in filing the appeal which is as under: 3. On going through the above condonation petition that the assessee had reasonable cause for not to file appeal within the speicified date and the reasons have been explained. Therefore, relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji

ROOMAN TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD., ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 534/BANG/2025[2015-16 Q1]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Vinod Gard, CAFor Respondent: Shri. R. Rajamanohar, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 2Section 200ASection 234ESection 271(1)(a)Section 271H

delay in filing the appeal which is as under: 3. On going through the above condonation petition that the assessee had reasonable cause for not to file appeal within the speicified date and the reasons have been explained. Therefore, relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji

ROOMAN TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1),, BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 535/BANG/2025[2015-16 Q2]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Vinod Gard, CAFor Respondent: Shri. R. Rajamanohar, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 2Section 200ASection 234ESection 271(1)(a)Section 271H

delay in filing the appeal which is as under: 3. On going through the above condonation petition that the assessee had reasonable cause for not to file appeal within the speicified date and the reasons have been explained. Therefore, relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji

ROOMAN TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)& TDS, BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 536/BANG/2025[2015-16 Q 3]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Vinod Gard, CAFor Respondent: Shri. R. Rajamanohar, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 2Section 200ASection 234ESection 271(1)(a)Section 271H

delay in filing the appeal which is as under: 3. On going through the above condonation petition that the assessee had reasonable cause for not to file appeal within the speicified date and the reasons have been explained. Therefore, relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji

SREE RAJENDRA SURI GURUMANDIR TRUST ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,(EXEMPTION) WARD-3,, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2020/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2015-16 Sree Rajendrasuri Gurumandir Trust, Vs. The Income Tax Officer (Exemptions), 25 & 25/1, Jain Temple Road, Ward – 3, Vishwweswarapuram, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 004. Pan : Aajts 8921 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Suman Lunkar, Ar. Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 28.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.12.2024 O R D E R Per Laxmi Prasad Sahuthis Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) [Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1056681273 (1)] Dated 30.09.2023. 2. The Sole & Substantiating Ground Raised By The Assessee To Challenge Order Of Nfac Confirming The Penalty Levied By The Ao Of Rs.54,700/- Under Section 272A(2)(E) Of The Act, For Delay In Filing The Return Of Income. The Due Date For Filing Return Of Income Was 30.09.2015 But The Assessee Filed Its Return On 31.03.2017. Accordingly, Ao Levied Penalty Under Section 272A(2)(E) Of The Act Of Rs.54,700/-. Page 2 Of 9 3. At The Outset Of Hearing, The Learned Counsel Drew Our Attention That The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Barred By 328 Days. However, The Registry Has Not Raised Any Defect Memo For Delay In Filing The Appeal. An Application Dated 22.11.2024 Has Been Filed By The Assessee Stating Therein The Reasons For Delay In Filing The Assessee Which Is As Under:

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 12ASection 139Section 143(1)Section 272A(2)(e)Section 275(1)(c)

D E R Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member This appeal is filed by the assessee against the Order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) [DIN and Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1056681273 (1)] dated 30.09.2023. 2. The sole and substantiating ground raised by the assessee to challenge Order of NFAC confirming the penalty levied by the AO of Rs.54

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

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 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

ASIAN EARTH MOVERS,BELLARY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 & TPS, BELLARY

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 136/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri B.S. Balachandran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 234ASection 249(4)Section 270ASection 272A(1)(d)

condoning the delay as is seen from the e-Portal, which has been omitted to be noticed. (ii) The tax payable on the income returned as per section 249(4) is NIL. 3. The impugned assessment order is bad in law and void: (i) Because, mere information that immovable property of the Appellant was sold