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.

9 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 451clear

Sorted by relevance

Patna150Karnataka100Mumbai48Ahmedabad37Kolkata35Chennai28Cochin26Raipur20Delhi17Jaipur14Bangalore9Hyderabad8Chandigarh6Indore3Lucknow3Nagpur3Cuttack2Surat2Visakhapatnam1Andhra Pradesh1Calcutta1Jodhpur1Pune1Rajkot1Telangana1

Key Topics

Section 10A10Section 1545Addition to Income5Section 143(1)(a)4Section 143(3)4Disallowance4Condonation of Delay4Section 53Section 143(1)

HARPAL SINGH ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed

ITA 262/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Oct 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar &For Respondent: Shri Priaydarshi Mishra, D.R
Section 5

451 days Harpal Singh, Benagaluru Page 2 of 5 in filing appeal before him. The Ld. CIT(A) has taken support of decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramlal Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. AIR 1962 SC 361 and also the decision rendered in the case of Chief Post Master General and Others Vs. Living Media

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

In the result both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

3
Section 36(1)(va)3
Section 1473
Limitation/Time-bar3
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

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 from business and income from other

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

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 from business and income from other

TIRUMAIAH SUNIL,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(4), BENGALURU

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

ITA 1285/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 249(4)(b)Section 69A

section 249(4)(b) of the Act. The assessee is aggrieved with the same and is in appeal. 2. I find that assessee has filed the appeal late by 451 days. The due date for filing of appeal was 5.3.2024, but the same was filed on 30.5.2025. The assessee has filed application for condonation of delay

SRI. SANJAY RAMPRAKASH SAXENA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC, , BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 176/BANG/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2009-10 Shri. Sanjay Ramprakash Saxena, Dcit, G1, Smr Devmuk Cpc, Sy. No.97/104, 9Th Main, Vs. Bengaluru. Bannerghatta Road, Vijaya Bank Layout, Bengaluru – 560 076. Pan : Aozps 7209 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Bharath Shetty, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel. Date Of Hearing : 17.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.05.2023

For Appellant: Shri. Bharath Shetty, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 10Section 10(13)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 17(2)Section 250Section 80CSection 80D

451/-. During the course of processing of return under section 143(1)(a) of the Act wherein disallowances were made which is as under: i. Value of perquisites under section 17(2) of the Act - Rs.12,335/- (twice considered) ii. HRA exemption under section 10(13A) of Rs.1,03,772 /- iii. Deduction under Chapter VI A – Rs.94,000/-. Page

JCIT vs. M/S DELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA,

In the result, IT(TP)A No

ITA 1838/BANG/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Oct 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR), ITAT, Bengaluru
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 147

451 of 2008 & ITA no. l37 of 2010) wherein it was held that telecommunication charges should be excluded both from export turnover and total turnover while applying the formula for allowing deduction u/s.10A(4) of the Act. 8. The AO did not accept the plea of the Assessee and he reduced telecommunication charges only from the Export Turnover

JCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/ SDELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA (P) LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, IT(TP)A No

ITA 1026/BANG/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Oct 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR), ITAT, Bengaluru
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 147

451 of 2008 & ITA no. l37 of 2010) wherein it was held that telecommunication charges should be excluded both from export turnover and total turnover while applying the formula for allowing deduction u/s.10A(4) of the Act. 8. The AO did not accept the plea of the Assessee and he reduced telecommunication charges only from the Export Turnover

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

451 (Bang.Trib.) - Shree Shyam Designs (P) Ltd. [2022] 137 taxmann.com 309 (Bang.Trib.) 5. The ld. DR relied on the order of lower authorities and submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court has settled this issue in favour of revenue which has been relied by the ld. CIT(Appeals). The due date has been considered by the Apex Court which

M/S. MUKKA PROTEINS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOW AS MUKKA SEA FOOD INDUSTRIES LTD., ),MANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , MANGALURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 431/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234A

delay, it was agreed to declare the purchases made from certain parties as its income. Meanwhile it was in the process of obtaining confirmations from suppliers. It could obtain confirmations from Mr. Abdul Rasheed and Mr. Sayyad Ebrahim. Confirmations received from parties were produced before us. Hence, the income admitted during the search proceedings in respect of said suppliers