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.

198 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 42clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai556Mumbai529Delhi494Kolkata286Ahmedabad204Bangalore198Pune166Hyderabad161Karnataka144Jaipur136Chandigarh94Amritsar84Nagpur72Indore69Visakhapatnam65Surat61Cuttack47Raipur40Calcutta40Cochin38Lucknow37Rajkot25SC23Guwahati19Telangana16Allahabad12Varanasi11Jodhpur10Patna10Agra5Rajasthan5Jabalpur4Dehradun4Orissa4Panaji4A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Punjab & Haryana1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Ranchi1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 234E72Section 200A66Addition to Income54Section 143(3)46Section 25038Disallowance36Condonation of Delay35Section 271H32Section 14A

M/S. RMZ HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 954/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 234Section 255Section 255(3)Section 36

condone the above delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. The first ground for our consideration is with regard to the disallowance of Rs.99,02,829/-, which is claimed by assessee as an interest payment. The assessee in the year under consideration advanced a sum of Rs.41 crores towards purchase of shares. The AO questioned the sources of Rs.41

Showing 1–20 of 198 · Page 1 of 10

...
24
TDS24
Section 14723
Section 143(1)23

PRATHAP SEETHARAMA REDDY ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(3)(1), BANGALAORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

ITA 1691/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Oct 2024AY 2017-18
Section 250

42 years, son of K. Seetharam\nReddy, residing at No.34/2, Akshaya Building, Ground Floor, G Block,\nBehind Big Market Sahakaranagara, Bengaluru\nsolemnly affirm and state on oath as under:\n562110 do hereby\n23 AUG 2024\n-2-\n1. That I am conversant with the facts and circumstances of the\nIncome Tax case hence I am swearing this Affidavit.\n2. That

SRI.INDUDHAR,DAVANGERE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DAVANGERE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2281/BANG/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Shankar,AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V.Sreenivasan, JCIT (D.R)
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

42. In the present case, we find that the appellants have been lackadaisical in their approach and in a nonchalant manner they have tried to seek condonation of delay. The Supreme Court in the decision referred supra has deprecated such practice of showing leniency in condoning the delay. The parameters laid down by the Supreme Court when not to condone

INDIRA VELURI,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2513/BANG/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Apr 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Sri Pavan Kumar, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ganesh R Gale, Standing counsel for department
Section 250Section 253(5)

condoning such delay. Accordingly, the ld. PCIT Bangalore-3, held that the delay in filing Form 67 for the AY 2021- 22 is rejected. 12.2 We also take a note of the fact that the main reason as cited by the assessee for not filing the Form 67 on or before the due date of filing the return of income

M/S APMG INDIA CERTIFICATIONS PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TDS, BENGALURU

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

ITA 3143/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Apmg India Certifications Private Limited, The Deputy Regus Business Centre, E-1, Commissioner Of Ground Floor, Beech, Manyata Income Tax, Vs. Embassy Business Park, Centralized Outer Ring Road, Nagawara, Processing Cell-Tds, Bangalore – 560 045. Ghaziabad. Pan: Aaica5537D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Deepak Chopra, Ca Revenue By : Shri K.N. Dhandapani, Jcit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 12.06.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.06.2019

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.N. Dhandapani, JCIT (DR)
Section 200ASection 234ESection 263

42 of the paper book. This para reads as under. “2. The petitioner in the condonation petition had submitted that the delay in filing the appeal was on account of incorrect advice given by the appellant's consultant. In respect of demand raised under section

MARINE DRISHTI AND COSTAL FOUNDATION ,GOA vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), BANGALORE, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 455/BANG/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri E. Shridhar, D.R
Section 12ASection 253Section 80G

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 7. Now the brief facts of the case are that the assessee “Marine Drishti Coastal Foundation” was incorporated on 24/05/2022 under section 8 of the Companies Act, 2013 as a non-profit organization to promote commerce, arts, science, sports, education, research, charity, protection of the environment, promote diverse cultural and heritage

MARINE DRISHTI AND COSTAL FOUNDATION ,GOA vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), BANGALORE, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 454/BANG/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri E. Shridhar, D.R
Section 12ASection 253Section 80G

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 7. Now the brief facts of the case are that the assessee “Marine Drishti Coastal Foundation” was incorporated on 24/05/2022 under section 8 of the Companies Act, 2013 as a non-profit organization to promote commerce, arts, science, sports, education, research, charity, protection of the environment, promote diverse cultural and heritage

MARINE DRISHTI AND COASTAL FOUNDATION ,GOA vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), BANGALORE, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 456/BANG/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri E. Shridhar, D.R
Section 12ASection 253Section 80G

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 7. Now the brief facts of the case are that the assessee “Marine Drishti Coastal Foundation” was incorporated on 24/05/2022 under section 8 of the Companies Act, 2013 as a non-profit organization to promote commerce, arts, science, sports, education, research, charity, protection of the environment, promote diverse cultural and heritage

SAMRAT GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

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

ITA 523/BANG/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Siddesh Nagaraj GaddiFor Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT-DR
Section 200ASection 234Section 234ESection 250

condoning the delay in filing the appeal; 3. The Learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the delay in filing appeal is not intentional, thereby erred in not appreciating that the delay is bonafide; 4. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding levy of late fee by way of processing of TDS statement, as provisions of section 200A

SAMRAT GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

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

ITA 528/BANG/2021[2015-16 (26Q-Q4)]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2021

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Siddesh Nagaraj GaddiFor Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT-DR
Section 200ASection 234Section 234ESection 250

condoning the delay in filing the appeal; 3. The Learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the delay in filing appeal is not intentional, thereby erred in not appreciating that the delay is bonafide; 4. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding levy of late fee by way of processing of TDS statement, as provisions of section 200A

SAMRAT GRANITES PRIVATE LIMTED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

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

ITA 524/BANG/2021[2014-15 (24Q-Q2)]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2021

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Siddesh Nagaraj GaddiFor Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT-DR
Section 200ASection 234Section 234ESection 250

condoning the delay in filing the appeal; 3. The Learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the delay in filing appeal is not intentional, thereby erred in not appreciating that the delay is bonafide; 4. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding levy of late fee by way of processing of TDS statement, as provisions of section 200A

SAMRAT GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

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

ITA 527/BANG/2021[2014-15 (26Q-Q2)]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2021

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Siddesh Nagaraj GaddiFor Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT-DR
Section 200ASection 234Section 234ESection 250

condoning the delay in filing the appeal; 3. The Learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the delay in filing appeal is not intentional, thereby erred in not appreciating that the delay is bonafide; 4. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding levy of late fee by way of processing of TDS statement, as provisions of section 200A

SAMRAT GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

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

ITA 525/BANG/2021[2014-15 (24Q-Q3)]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2021

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Siddesh Nagaraj GaddiFor Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT-DR
Section 200ASection 234Section 234ESection 250

condoning the delay in filing the appeal; 3. The Learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the delay in filing appeal is not intentional, thereby erred in not appreciating that the delay is bonafide; 4. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding levy of late fee by way of processing of TDS statement, as provisions of section 200A

SAMRAT GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER POF INCOME TAX, CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

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

ITA 520/BANG/2021[2013-14 (26Q-Q2)]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2021

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Siddesh Nagaraj GaddiFor Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT-DR
Section 200ASection 234Section 234ESection 250

condoning the delay in filing the appeal; 3. The Learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the delay in filing appeal is not intentional, thereby erred in not appreciating that the delay is bonafide; 4. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding levy of late fee by way of processing of TDS statement, as provisions of section 200A

SAMRAT GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

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

ITA 521/BANG/2021[2013-14 (26Q-Q3)]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2021

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Siddesh Nagaraj GaddiFor Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT-DR
Section 200ASection 234Section 234ESection 250

condoning the delay in filing the appeal; 3. The Learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the delay in filing appeal is not intentional, thereby erred in not appreciating that the delay is bonafide; 4. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding levy of late fee by way of processing of TDS statement, as provisions of section 200A

SAMRAT GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

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

ITA 526/BANG/2021[2014-15 (26Q-Q1)]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2021

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Siddesh Nagaraj GaddiFor Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT-DR
Section 200ASection 234Section 234ESection 250

condoning the delay in filing the appeal; 3. The Learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the delay in filing appeal is not intentional, thereby erred in not appreciating that the delay is bonafide; 4. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding levy of late fee by way of processing of TDS statement, as provisions of section 200A

SAMRAT GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

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

ITA 522/BANG/2021[2013-14 (26Q-Q4)]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2021

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Siddesh Nagaraj GaddiFor Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT-DR
Section 200ASection 234Section 234ESection 250

condoning the delay in filing the appeal; 3. The Learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the delay in filing appeal is not intentional, thereby erred in not appreciating that the delay is bonafide; 4. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding levy of late fee by way of processing of TDS statement, as provisions of section 200A

SAMRAT GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

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

ITA 519/BANG/2021[2013-14 (24Q-Q2)]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2021

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Siddesh Nagaraj GaddiFor Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT-DR
Section 200ASection 234Section 234ESection 250

condoning the delay in filing the appeal; 3. The Learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the delay in filing appeal is not intentional, thereby erred in not appreciating that the delay is bonafide; 4. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding levy of late fee by way of processing of TDS statement, as provisions of section 200A

CHOURASIAINFRATECH PVT LTD., ,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 317/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Y Pranay Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, JCIT
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 246ASection 250Section 253(3)

42 taxmann.com 57 (Kar). iii) CIT Vs. Sanmac Motor Finance Ltd (2010) 322 ITR 309 (Madras) iv) L. SOhanraj Vs. DCIT in ITA No. 120 to 135 of 2004 dated 19.07.2004 (Kar) 22. Wherefore, the above mentioned Appellant humbly pray before your Honour to kindly take a lenient and compassionate view and condone the delay of about 461 days

W.S.BASHEER,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-7(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for asst

ITA 1928/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Dec 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep, C AFor Respondent: Shri B.R. Ramesh, JCIT (D.R)
Section 143(3)

Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') vide order dt.27.3.2015 wherein the assessee's income was determined at Rs.53,69,822 in view of the following additions / disallowances to the returned income of Rs.1,16,610 :- i) Income tax penalty Rs.1,47,016 ii) Adhoc disallowance of 25% of sundry creditors Rs.4