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.

77 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 43Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai256Kolkata150Delhi149Pune120Mumbai96Bangalore77Nagpur59Hyderabad52Jaipur47Ahmedabad36Cuttack31Indore30Chandigarh27Surat26Lucknow25Visakhapatnam22Amritsar21Cochin12Raipur11Guwahati10Allahabad9Jodhpur7Varanasi6Calcutta3Rajkot3Patna3SC3Panaji1Dehradun1

Key Topics

Section 43B105Section 143(1)79Section 36(1)(va)64Disallowance58Addition to Income47Section 139(1)44Deduction35Condonation of Delay31Section 250

SHRI. BORAIAH SHIVANANJAIAH,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 680/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Boraiah Shivananjaiah, Asst.Commissioner Of K. Janatha Colony, Income Tax, Bidadi Hobli, Vs. Circle - 3(2)(1) Ramnagara Dist., Bengaluru Bengaluru Pan – Anaps2762E Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Assessee by Sri Sreehari Kutsa, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43ASection 43B

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. Accordingly, the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 6. Now we will proceed on merits of grounds raised by the assessee. The first ground is with regard to the disallowance of Employees’ Contribution to EPF beyond due date, by invoking Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. In our opinion

Showing 1–20 of 77 · Page 1 of 4

23
Limitation/Time-bar20
Section 143(3)18
Section 14318

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)

section 3(1)(b) of the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendments of Certain Provisions) Act 2020. We will therefore consider whether the bona fide belief of the assessee, that the employee contribution of PF and ESI was accepted in the intimation 143(1) since the refund was accepted, is a sufficient cause for the delay. 9. On merits

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

condone the delay of 508 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 19. Coming to the merits of the issue, the grievance of the assessee is disallowance of Rs.11,78,481 being PF & ESI contribution of employees paid beyond the due date u/s. 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 43B of the Act. It was Page

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

M/S. SREE MINERALS,BELLARY vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, BELLARY

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

ITA 719/BANG/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 May 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, D.R
Section 143Section 143(3)

condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. That the above partnership firm was originally constituted under the Deed of partnership dated 14/11/2006 between Sri B V Sreenivasa Reddy and Smt. B Sreelatha, my father and mother respectively, who were carrying of business of mining of Iron-ore, Manganese, Granites, Quartz and other minerals and transportation of the same

MCAFEE SOFTWARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 110/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri. Aliasgar Rampurawala, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Satish Meriga, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 25oSection 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 43B

condonation of delay. Assessee had stated before the CIT(A) that although the additions were made under section 43B of the Act in an intimation

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

delay of 102 days in both the appeals are condoned and the appeal of the assesses are admitted. 8. The solitary issue in this appeal is that assessee is an individual assessee filed its return of income for assessment year 2019 – 20 on 6 February 2020 at a total income of ₹ 24,483,310/– showing income from house property, income

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

In the result both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2396/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 143Section 36Section 5

delay of 102 days in both the appeals are condoned and the appeal of the assesses are admitted. 8. The solitary issue in this appeal is that assessee is an individual assessee filed its return of income for assessment year 2019 – 20 on 6 February 2020 at a total income of ₹ 24,483,310/– showing income from house property, income

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) and 43B

M/S IDS NEXT BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER PF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 2119/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Rampriyadas, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sankarganesh K, JCIT (DR)
Section 145ASection 43B

43B is not applicable to the instant case, then addition if made under section 145A should be on the both the credit and debit of the Profit and loss account as the services rendered is not part of the closing stock valuation. 5. The Appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter, vary and/ or withdraw

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. KHODAY INDIA LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

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

ITA 407/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridhar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 43B

section 36[1][va] and 43B of the Act by Finance Act, 2021 is only prospective in nature and not retrospective. (i) Dhabriya Polywood Limited v. ACIT reported in (2021) 63 CCH 0030 Jaipur Trib. ITA Nos.407 & 408/Bang/2022 Page 5 of 8 (ii) NCC Limited v. ACIT reported in (2021) 63 CCH 0060 Hyd Tribunal. (iii) Indian Geotechnical Services

M/S. KHODAY INDIA LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

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

ITA 408/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jul 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridhar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 43B

section 36[1][va] and 43B of the Act by Finance Act, 2021 is only prospective in nature and not retrospective. (i) Dhabriya Polywood Limited v. ACIT reported in (2021) 63 CCH 0030 Jaipur Trib. ITA Nos.407 & 408/Bang/2022 Page 5 of 8 (ii) NCC Limited v. ACIT reported in (2021) 63 CCH 0060 Hyd Tribunal. (iii) Indian Geotechnical Services

PALO ALTO NETWORKS (INDIA) TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-5(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2073/BANG/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jan 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Years : 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Khurana & Ms. Divya Motwani, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Venktesh V, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 234BSection 234CSection 24BSection 250Section 43B

43B of the Act. Against the order under section 143(1) of the Act the assessee filed appeal before the learned CIT(A) which was delayed by the 408 days. The learned CIT(A) did not condone

M/S KEN CONSULTING PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed in ITA No

ITA 300/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jun 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, D.R
Section 154Section 43B

condoned the delay in filing appeal against the initial appellate order. We shall be dealing with the issue relating to the addition made u/s 43B of the Act in the above said appeal filed against original appellate order. The appeal filed by the assessee against rectification order also deal with the very same issue and hence, there is no necessity

M/S KEN CONSULTING PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed in ITA No

ITA 301/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jun 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, D.R
Section 154Section 43B

condoned the delay in filing appeal against the initial appellate order. We shall be dealing with the issue relating to the addition made u/s 43B of the Act in the above said appeal filed against original appellate order. The appeal filed by the assessee against rectification order also deal with the very same issue and hence, there is no necessity

AYISHA FIRDOSE ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 753/BANG/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmedr Assessment Year : 2021-22 Smt. Ayisha Firdose, Vs. Ito, No.208, 1St Floor, 1St Main Road, Ward – 5(3)(1), Chamrajpet, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 018. Pan : Akxpa 8709 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Matta Padma, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.06.2024

For Appellant: Shri. Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Matta Padma, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

condoning the delay in filing the appeal as the Appellant has reasonable cause. 4. The Learned CIT(A)/AO has exceeded jurisdiction in incorporating adjustment which is not covered within the scope of section 143(1) of the Act; 5. The impugned intimation without granting the opportunity of being heard is against the principles of natural justice and is liable

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

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