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.

27 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 273Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Surat33Cochin27Bangalore27Mumbai22Delhi21Karnataka21Chennai19Pune17Jaipur16Kolkata14Hyderabad13Ahmedabad11Lucknow10Nagpur8Indore7Chandigarh6Cuttack5Visakhapatnam4Jodhpur4Calcutta3Jabalpur3Amritsar2Raipur1Rajkot1SC1Guwahati1Varanasi1Patna1

Key Topics

Section 271F45Penalty27Section 273B23Section 10(5)17Condonation of Delay17Section 271D14Limitation/Time-bar10Section 271B9Section 271C

SRI. CHINNAYELLAPPA CHANDRASHEKAR, ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2012/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 250Section 271BSection 44A

condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 5. Now coming to the brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual who derives Income from Business and other Sources. For the year under appeal, the assessee had filed his return of income on 30/03/2019 reporting a taxable income of Rs.13,56,930/-. Thereafter, the assessee

GOPAL KRISHNA KARODI SABBANA,DAKSHINA KANNADA vs. DY./ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, MANGALORE

Showing 1–20 of 27 · Page 1 of 2

9
Exemption8
Natural Justice7
Addition to Income7

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all these AY are\nallowed

ITA 1508/BANG/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jan 2026AY 2019-2020
Section 271B

condone the delay and admit all\nthese appeals for adjudication.\n7. Now the brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an\nindividual deriving income mainly from PWD contract works. The\nAO observed that the assessee had neither filed his return of\nincome nor furnished the audit report as required under the\nprovisions of the Act within

GOPAL KRISHNA KARODI SABBANA,DAKSHINA KANNADA vs. DY./ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all these AY are allowed

ITA 1506/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Srinivas Kamath, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N., D.R
Section 253(5)Section 271B

condone the delay and admit all these appeals for adjudication. 7. Now the brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual deriving income mainly from PWD contract works. The AO observed that the assessee had neither filed his return of income nor furnished the audit report as required under the provisions of the Act within

GOPAL KRISHNA KARODI SABBANA,DAKSHINA KANNADA vs. DY./ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all these AY are allowed

ITA 1505/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Srinivas Kamath, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N., D.R
Section 253(5)Section 271B

condone the delay and admit all these appeals for adjudication. 7. Now the brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual deriving income mainly from PWD contract works. The AO observed that the assessee had neither filed his return of income nor furnished the audit report as required under the provisions of the Act within

GOPAL KRISHNA KARODI SABBANA ,DAKSHINA KANNADA vs. DY./ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all these AY are allowed

ITA 1504/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Srinivas Kamath, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N., D.R
Section 253(5)Section 271B

condone the delay and admit all these appeals for adjudication. 7. Now the brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual deriving income mainly from PWD contract works. The AO observed that the assessee had neither filed his return of income nor furnished the audit report as required under the provisions of the Act within

GOPAL KRISHNA KARODI SABBANA,DAKSHINA KANNADA vs. DY./ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2,, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all these AY are allowed

ITA 1507/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Srinivas Kamath, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N., D.R
Section 253(5)Section 271B

condone the delay and admit all these appeals for adjudication. 7. Now the brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual deriving income mainly from PWD contract works. The AO observed that the assessee had neither filed his return of income nor furnished the audit report as required under the provisions of the Act within

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

273B states that notwithstanding anything ITA Nos. 2413 to 2415/Bang/2019 Page 8 of 15 contained in Section 271C, no penalty shall be imposed on the person or the assessee for failure to deduct tax at source if such person or the assessee proves that there was a reasonable cause for the said failure. Therefore, the liability to levy of penalty

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

273B states that notwithstanding anything ITA Nos. 2413 to 2415/Bang/2019 Page 8 of 15 contained in Section 271C, no penalty shall be imposed on the person or the assessee for failure to deduct tax at source if such person or the assessee proves that there was a reasonable cause for the said failure. Therefore, the liability to levy of penalty

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

273B states that notwithstanding anything ITA Nos. 2413 to 2415/Bang/2019 Page 8 of 15 contained in Section 271C, no penalty shall be imposed on the person or the assessee for failure to deduct tax at source if such person or the assessee proves that there was a reasonable cause for the said failure. Therefore, the liability to levy of penalty

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

273B states that notwithstanding anything ITA Nos. 2413 to 2415/Bang/2019 Page 8 of 15 contained in Section 271C, no penalty shall be imposed on the person or the assessee for failure to deduct tax at source if such person or the assessee proves that there was a reasonable cause for the said failure. Therefore, the liability to levy of penalty

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

273B states that notwithstanding anything ITA Nos. 2413 to 2415/Bang/2019 Page 8 of 15 contained in Section 271C, no penalty shall be imposed on the person or the assessee for failure to deduct tax at source if such person or the assessee proves that there was a reasonable cause for the said failure. Therefore, the liability to levy of penalty

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

273B of the Act provide no penalty under Section 271F shall be imposed on an 3 assessee for failure referred to in Section 271F of the Act, if the assessee proves that there was a reasonable cause for the said failure. 3. A show cause notice dt.22.7.2014 under Section 271F of the Act was issued by the Assessing Officer

GURU KRIPA RURAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATIONAL AND RESEARCH TRUST ,UDUPI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE EXEMPTIONS , HUBLI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 400/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri R. Ramamurthy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 139Section 272A(2)(e)Section 273B

condone the delay and admit the appeals. 5. Regarding the merit, it was submitted by ld. AR of assessee that in the written submissions in the statement of facts (SOF) filed by the assessee before the CIT(A), it has been explained in detail as to why there was delay in filing return of income. He submitted that these contents

GURU KRIPA RURAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATIONAL AND RESEARCH TRUST ,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE EXEMPTIONS , BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 401/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jul 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri R. Ramamurthy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 139Section 272A(2)(e)Section 273B

condone the delay and admit the appeals. 5. Regarding the merit, it was submitted by ld. AR of assessee that in the written submissions in the statement of facts (SOF) filed by the assessee before the CIT(A), it has been explained in detail as to why there was delay in filing return of income. He submitted that these contents

GURU KRIPA RURAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATIONAL AND RESEARCH TRUST ,UDUPI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE EXEMPTIONS , HUBLI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 399/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri R. Ramamurthy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 139Section 272A(2)(e)Section 273B

condone the delay and admit the appeals. 5. Regarding the merit, it was submitted by ld. AR of assessee that in the written submissions in the statement of facts (SOF) filed by the assessee before the CIT(A), it has been explained in detail as to why there was delay in filing return of income. He submitted that these contents

PRAGATHI CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTELLIGENCE AND CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION), BANGALORE

In the result, all eight appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1857/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Oct 2020AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Balaram P. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Guruprasad M. P. JCIT DR
Section 271FSection 273B

condone the delay. 4. Regarding merit of these appeals, learned AR of the assessee submitted that penalty u/s 271FA is also covered by section 273B

PRAGATHI CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTELLIGENCE AND CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION), BANGALORE

In the result, all eight appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1856/BANG/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Oct 2020AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Balaram P. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Guruprasad M. P. JCIT DR
Section 271FSection 273B

condone the delay. 4. Regarding merit of these appeals, learned AR of the assessee submitted that penalty u/s 271FA is also covered by section 273B

PRAGATHI CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTELLIGENCE AND CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION), BANGALORE

In the result, all eight appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1855/BANG/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Oct 2020AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri Balaram P. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Guruprasad M. P. JCIT DR
Section 271FSection 273B

condone the delay. 4. Regarding merit of these appeals, learned AR of the assessee submitted that penalty u/s 271FA is also covered by section 273B

PRAGATHI CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTELLIGENCE AND CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION), BANGALORE

In the result, all eight appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1854/BANG/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Oct 2020AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Shri Balaram P. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Guruprasad M. P. JCIT DR
Section 271FSection 273B

condone the delay. 4. Regarding merit of these appeals, learned AR of the assessee submitted that penalty u/s 271FA is also covered by section 273B

PRAGATHI CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTELLIGENCE AND CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION), BANGALORE

In the result, all eight appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1858/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Oct 2020AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Balaram P. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Guruprasad M. P. JCIT DR
Section 271FSection 273B

condone the delay. 4. Regarding merit of these appeals, learned AR of the assessee submitted that penalty u/s 271FA is also covered by section 273B