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.

50 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 36(1)(va)clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai198Delhi152Kolkata83Chandigarh77Nagpur58Mumbai57Jaipur56Bangalore50Pune43Hyderabad41Ahmedabad32Indore30Surat24Cuttack21Visakhapatnam20Amritsar20Raipur20Lucknow17Jodhpur10Cochin7Varanasi6Allahabad6Guwahati5Rajkot3SC2Patna2Telangana1Calcutta1

Key Topics

Section 143(1)79Section 36(1)(va)78Section 43B56Section 139(1)41Disallowance37Addition to Income31Section 25029Deduction23Condonation of Delay

SRI. CHANDRAKANT SHAMAPPA KONTHA,HUBLI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1 & TPS, HUBLI

In the result both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2397/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 143Section 36Section 5

section 36 (1) (va) of the act. Accordingly in view of the same the ITA No. 2396 & 2397/ bang/2024 A Y : 2019-20 & 2020-21 Shri Chandrakant Shamappa Kpntha Versus DCIT Circle (1) (1) & TPS Hubli assessee did not prefer any appeal. However later on the assessee filed the details before the learned assessing officer in order to give effect

SRI. CHANDRAKANT SHAMAPPA KONTHA,HUBLI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1) & TPS, HUBLI

In the result both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Showing 1–20 of 50 · Page 1 of 3

18
Section 3615
Section 80J14
Section 13913
ITA 2396/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: Disposed
ITAT Bangalore
09 Dec 2025
AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 143Section 36Section 5

section 36 (1) (va) of the act. Accordingly in view of the same the ITA No. 2396 & 2397/ bang/2024 A Y : 2019-20 & 2020-21 Shri Chandrakant Shamappa Kpntha Versus DCIT Circle (1) (1) & TPS Hubli assessee did not prefer any appeal. However later on the assessee filed the details before the learned assessing officer in order to give effect

KARNATAKA STATE ELECTRONICS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 599/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year :2018-19 M/S. Karnataka State Electronics Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Development Corporation Ltd., Income Tax, 2Nd Floor, Ttmc “A” Block, Cpc, Bengaluru. Bmtc, Shanthinagar, K. H. Road, Bengaluru–560 027. Pan : Aabck 6661 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Raghavendra R Chakravarthy, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 09.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Raghavendra R Chakravarthy, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

condoned the impugned default before 01.04.2021. Further, in the recent Judgments of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore in the case of M/s Nirmal Enviro Solutions Private Limited (order dated 12.10.2021), M/s The Continental Restaurant & Café Co. (order dated 11.10.2021) and Shri. Gopala Krishna Aswini Kumar (order dated 13.10.2021) have held that amendment made in section 36(1)(va) is applicable

KARLE INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

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

ITA 39/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Smt.Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Narayana K.R., Addl.CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

36(1)(va) of the Act be deleted.” 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows: For the assessment year 2018-2019, the return of income was filed on 29.10.2018, declaring a loss of Rs.50,81,93,865. The assessee was served with an intimation u/s 143(1)(a) of the I.T.Act determining the total loss at Rs.50

EQUIPMENT FABRICATORS,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 386/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K. Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 234BSection 23ASection 36(1)(va)Section 43B

36(1)(va) read with section 43B of the Act. 8. The Ld CIT (A) and the Ld AO have erred in making the addition despite the fact that the Appellant had made the remittances towards PF and ESI contribution of employees before the due date of filing return under section 139(1) of the Act, which fact

DUSTERS TOTAL SOLUTIONS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 653/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Kavita Jha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 80J

condone such delay, and the appellant must approach the appropriate authority separately. 24.9 The learned CIT(A) also observed that several reasons mentioned by the appellant for other delayed payments were not supported by documentary evidence. The learned CIT(A) further noted that similar delays were seen in earlier years as well. This suggested that the pattern of delay

DUSTERS TOTAL SOLUTIONS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 980/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Kavita Jha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 80J

condone such delay, and the appellant must approach the appropriate authority separately. 24.9 The learned CIT(A) also observed that several reasons mentioned by the appellant for other delayed payments were not supported by documentary evidence. The learned CIT(A) further noted that similar delays were seen in earlier years as well. This suggested that the pattern of delay

SRI. AMIT KUMAR RAJENDRA PRASAD SINGH ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(3) , BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 306/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, JCIT-DR
Section 139Section 143Section 234ASection 250Section 36

condoned. 10.2 Subsequently, by virtue of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. cited (supra), the ratio has been laid down that any delay in depositing the employees contribution to the respective funds by an employer would amount to disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act of such contribution. Further

SRI. MANIKANDAN VAZHUKKAPAR KUMARAN,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stands dismissed

ITA 577/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nischal B., D.R
Section 139Section 143Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

delay caused in filing the above appeals before this tribunal stands condoned. 4.1 On merits of the case, the ld. A.R. submitted that, the only issue that has been challenged by assessee before this Tribunal in all these appeals pertains to disallowance of employees contribution to ESI & PF u/s 36(1)(va

SRI. P. HARSHAVARDHANA REDDY,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1016/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jan 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri, S.V. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(1)Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

condone the delay of 144 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. The assessee is an individual and filed return of income on 6.10.2018 for the impugned assessment year. Though various grounds are raised in this appeal, the only issue pertains to disallowance of belated payment of Rs.1,27,31,281 towards Provident Fund

RAMZANALI ASGAR KHAN ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(3)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 806/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Nayaz Pasha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

condoned. 10.2 Subsequently, by virtue of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. cited (supra), the ratio has been laid down that any delay in depositing the employees contribution to the respective funds by an employer would amount to disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act of such contribution. Further

RAMZANALI ASGAR KHAN,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(3)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 807/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Nayaz Pasha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

condoned. 10.2 Subsequently, by virtue of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. cited (supra), the ratio has been laid down that any delay in depositing the employees contribution to the respective funds by an employer would amount to disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act of such contribution. Further

MUNIYALLAPPA BHARATHI,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(3)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stands dismissed

ITA 841/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Subramanya Bhat, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 25oSection 36(1)(va)Section 43

condoned. 10.2 Subsequently, by virtue of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. cited (supra), the ratio has been laid down that any delay in depositing the employees contribution to the respective funds by an employer would amount to disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act of such contribution. Further

ANJAPPAR CHETTINAD AC RESTAURANT,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the both the appeals are allowed

ITA 452/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. V. Padmanaban, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

condone the delay in filing the appeal. 3. As far as ITA No.452/Bang/2022 is concerned, the said appeal arises out of the order dated 13.05.2022 passed by the NFAC, Delhi relating to Assessment Year 2019-20. 4. In both the appeals, the only issue that requires consideration is as to whether the Revenue authorities were justified in upholding the addition

ANJAPPAR CHETTINAD AC RESTAURANT,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the both the appeals are allowed

ITA 393/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: PendingITAT Bangalore14 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. V. Padmanaban, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

condone the delay in filing the appeal. 3. As far as ITA No.452/Bang/2022 is concerned, the said appeal arises out of the order dated 13.05.2022 passed by the NFAC, Delhi relating to Assessment Year 2019-20. 4. In both the appeals, the only issue that requires consideration is as to whether the Revenue authorities were justified in upholding the addition

PIVOTREE SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS BRIDGE SGI SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 799/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

condone the delay and consider both the appeals for adjudication. 5. The only issue in these appeals is regarding disallowance of delayed payment of employees’ contribution to ESI and Provident Fund u/s. 43B r.w.s. 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act] by the revenue authorities. 6. The assessee is engaged in the business of development

PIVOTREE SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS BRIDGE SGI SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 798/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

condone the delay and consider both the appeals for adjudication. 5. The only issue in these appeals is regarding disallowance of delayed payment of employees’ contribution to ESI and Provident Fund u/s. 43B r.w.s. 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act] by the revenue authorities. 6. The assessee is engaged in the business of development

M/S. L K TRUST,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

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

ITA 409/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

For Appellant: Sri.V.Sridhar, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Suresh Rao, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 143(1)

condone the delay of filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and proceed to dispose of the matter on merits. As regards the issue on merits, we find that the same is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by various orders of the ITAT, wherein, it was held that amendment to section 36(1)(va

SMT. VASANTHI PADMANABHA SHERUGAR,BELLARY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1, BELLARY

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 545/BANG/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Sept 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri. Sandeep Huilgol, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sridharan P, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

condone Page 2 of 10 the delay of 39 days in filing this appeal and proceed to dispose off the same on merits. 3. The grounds raised read as follows: 1. That the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeals Centre (NFAC), ("CIT(A)" for short), is opposed to the applicable laws and facts

M/S. VTH SOURCE COMPONENTS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS-3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessees is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2620/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri V Sudheendranath, ARFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshini Mishra, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 154Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 201Section 206CSection 234E

section 200A(1) was substituted by the Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 1.6.2015. The assessee contended that AO could levy fee u/s.234E of the Act while processing a return of TDS filed u/s.200(3) of the Act only by virtue of the provisions of Sec.200A(1)(c), (d) & (f) of the Act and those provisions came into force only from