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.

12 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 54Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Chandigarh54Indore22Bangalore12Pune9Surat9Delhi8Mumbai6Ahmedabad6Jaipur5Chennai4Nagpur3Hyderabad3Agra2Kolkata2Rajkot2Patna1Amritsar1Punjab & Haryana1Raipur1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1SC1Calcutta1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)16Section 26314Addition to Income7Section 54B6Section 54F6Deduction6Capital Gains6Condonation of Delay6Section 48

SHRI MUNIYAPPA NARASHIMAIAH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 6(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assesseeis treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 26/BANG/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathyassessment Year :2013-14 Shri. Muniyappa Narashimaiah, Vs. Ito, No.120/1, Hessarghatta Main Road, Ward – 6(2)(3), Bhuvaneshwari Nagar, T Dasarahalli, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 057. Pan : Abmpn 5245 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Mahesh Kumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Priyadarshini Mishra, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.04.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: . V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Mahesh Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Priyadarshini Mishra, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10(37)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54Section 54B

condonation for delay by the assessee before the Tribunal. It has been stated therein that one Shri. Ramakrishna Reddy, CA, was engaged by the assessee to handle the aforesaid assessment. It appears that the assessee’s land at Sy. No.60/3A-1, Yeshwanthpur, measuring an extent of 7.08 Guntas (hereinafter referred to as ‘Property’) was compulsorily acquired by Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation

5
Section 1324
Section 153A4
Section 80P3

M/S. YASHA PATTINA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI NI,RAICHUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, , RAICHUR

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

ITA 1177/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Feb 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Channamalikarjuna Gowda, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Revenue
Section 154Section 253(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

delay of 150 days is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 5. After hearing both the parties, I am of the opinion that similar issue came for consideration before this Tribunal in the case of M/s. CSI Credit Co-operative Society Vs. ITO cited (supra) wherein the Tribunal has held as under:- M/s. Yaksh Pattina Souharda Sahakari

MANOJ KUMAR EKAMBARAM ARCOT,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1730/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar .S.V, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT-DR
Section 234ASection 54Section 54B

54B, 54C, 54D, 54G and 54GA. For all the notices, the assessee had not filed their reply and thereafter a show cause notice for imposing penalty was issued to the assessee. The assessee appeared through the authorized representative and submitted that the assessee had purchased a new property and produced the copy of the sale agreement. The assessee

K.R. PARAMAHAMSA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1408/BANG/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jan 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri H.N. Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

condone the delay and admit the appeals. AY 2001-02 4. The facts are that consequent to search u/s. 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] on 24.8.2006 at the residential premises of the assessee, notice u/s. 153A was issued and in response to the same, the assessee filed return of income declaring an income of Rs.4

K.R. PARAMAHAMSA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1405/BANG/2013[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jan 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri H.N. Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

condone the delay and admit the appeals. AY 2001-02 4. The facts are that consequent to search u/s. 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] on 24.8.2006 at the residential premises of the assessee, notice u/s. 153A was issued and in response to the same, the assessee filed return of income declaring an income of Rs.4

K.R. PARAMAHAMSA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1406/BANG/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jan 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri H.N. Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

condone the delay and admit the appeals. AY 2001-02 4. The facts are that consequent to search u/s. 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] on 24.8.2006 at the residential premises of the assessee, notice u/s. 153A was issued and in response to the same, the assessee filed return of income declaring an income of Rs.4

K.R. PARAMAHAMSA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1407/BANG/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jan 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri H.N. Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

condone the delay and admit the appeals. AY 2001-02 4. The facts are that consequent to search u/s. 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] on 24.8.2006 at the residential premises of the assessee, notice u/s. 153A was issued and in response to the same, the assessee filed return of income declaring an income of Rs.4

SRI.LOKESH M, ,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the assesses are partly allowed

ITA 292/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Oct 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravi Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. Devrathna Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54F

condone the delay in filing these appeals. 7. As far as merits of the appeal are concerned, the factual details that emerges from the record are that the Assessee and his deceased wife were co-owners of the property. By a sale deed dated 28.11.2012, they sold the property for a sale consideration of Rs.1,75,00,000/-. The Share

SRI.LOKESH M, LR OF SMT MALATHI LOKESH ,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the assesses are partly allowed

ITA 293/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Oct 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravi Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. Devrathna Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54F

condone the delay in filing these appeals. 7. As far as merits of the appeal are concerned, the factual details that emerges from the record are that the Assessee and his deceased wife were co-owners of the property. By a sale deed dated 28.11.2012, they sold the property for a sale consideration of Rs.1,75,00,000/-. The Share

CHINNAPPA ANTHONAPPA,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 663/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri B.S. Balachandran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139Section 147Section 45Section 54B

54B of the Act. 3. There is a delay of two days in filing this appeal by the assessee before the Tribunal. The assessee is 84 year old senior citizen with health Page 2 of 11 issues. Because of old age and ill-health, the assessee could not contact the counsel and file the appeal in time. The delay

SRI K R UDAYA KUMAR,MYSORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 525/BANG/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Dec 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2008-09

For Respondent: Shri S.V. Ravishankar
Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 234A

condone the delay and admit the present appeal, decide it on merits. 8. Brief facts of the case are as under: 8.1 For the year under consideration, the assessee had filed his return of income on 31.03.2009 declaring an income of Rs.8,84,560/- including agricultural income of Rs.67,650/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS

DEVAPPA MUNIRAJU,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(2)(2), BANGALORE

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

ITA 981/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Vishal S. Rao, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Shankar Prasad K., Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 2(14)Section 234ASection 234BSection 48Section 54B

condone the delay in fling the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. The assessee has also raised additional grounds of appeal which read as follows:- “1. The Learned First Appellate Authority erred in upholding the deduction of entire cost u/s 48(ii) of the Act disregarding the facts of the case as per which the Appellant was entitled