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.

10 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 56(2)(viib)clear

Sorted by relevance

Chandigarh51Delhi29Chennai16Mumbai11Bangalore10Kolkata9Pune6Hyderabad3Cuttack3Ahmedabad2Visakhapatnam1Jaipur1Jodhpur1Lucknow1Nagpur1Patna1

Key Topics

Section 56(2)(viib)16Section 26313Section 143(3)8Addition to Income8Condonation of Delay4Limitation/Time-bar3Section 402Section 143(2)2Section 271

ITO, WARD-3(1)(3), BANGALORE, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE vs. IRUNWAY INDIA PVT LTD, BANAGLORE

In the result, CO filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 676/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jan 2024AY 2014-15
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 56Section 56(2)(viib)

Section 56(2)(viib) of the act\nhas no application to the shares issued by the Respondent to Mr, Jaikesh Dani,\ninasmuch the same was issued by the Respondent under its employee stock\noption plan, the price under which was agreed way back in the year 2008.\n\n5. That without prejudice and in any event, while computing the fair

DCIT, CIRCLE 3(1)(1), BENGALURU, BMTC BUILDING, KORAMANGALA vs. GTR ALUMINIUM PRIVATE LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

2
Section 2502
Section 212
Penalty2
ITA 165/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Sri Monish Sowkhar, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N., D.R
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253Section 263Section 56(2)(viib)

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 4. Now the brief facts of the case are that the assessee, being a registered Private Limited Company, engaged inthe manufacturing and supply of superior qualityof Aluminium Extrusion and M/s. GTR Aluminium Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 3 of 16 Aluminium Alloy Ingots. The assesseefiled its return of income

M/S. WATERLINE HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 388/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14 Waterline Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner 10Th Floor, Gamma Block, Of Income Tax, Sigma Soft Tech Park No.07, Circle 7(1)(2), Airport Varthur Road, Bangalore. Whitefield, Bangalore – 560 066. Pan: Aaacw 8059N Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Pranav Krishna, Advocate Respondent By : Shri V S Chakrapani, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S.This Appeal By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Cit(Appeals)-7, Bengaluru Dated 27.3.2019 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised 18 Grounds Pertaining To The Following Issues:- Page 2 Of 20

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V S Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 271Section 40Section 56(2)(viib)

section 56(2)(viib) and made an addition of Rs.33,71,77,500. The AO also made a disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act towards the payments made by the assessee for management fees, outsourcing expenses and license fees. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(Appeals), who upheld the addition/disallowance made

M/S. UKN HOSPITALITY PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 7(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2170/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Ukn Hospitality Private Limited, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 10Th Floor, Gamma Block, Sigma Soft Tech Ward – 7(1)(2), Park, No.7, Airport Varthur Road, Bengaluru. Whitefield Main Road, Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aaacu 8470 B Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri S. V. Ravishankar Advocate Respondent By : Shri Kannan Narayanan, Jt.Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.06.2021 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevanthis Appeal By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–10, Bangalore, Dated 8.3.2019 In Relation To Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. There Is A Delay Of About 132 Days In Filing This Appeal By The Assessee. The Reasons For The Delay Is Owing To The Fact That Mr.K.Ravindran, The Group Cfo & Director Who Was Handling The Matter Did Not Bring To The Notice Of The Group Chairman About The Impugned Order. Mr.K.Ravindran Was Made To Resign As Director Due To Various Issues & He Stopped Attending Office Since April, 2019. The Chartered Account Who Appeared Before Cit(A) In A Meeting With The Officials On Page 2 Of 12 30.9.2019 Found That No Action Had Been Taken Against The Impugned Order & Thereafter The Appeal Had Been Filed.

For Appellant: Shri S. V. Ravishankar AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kannan Narayanan, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10Section 14Section 21Section 56(2)(viib)

delay in filing appeal should be condoned and accordingly the same is condoned. 4. The only issue involved in the appeal is as to whether the revenue authorities were justified in invoking provisions of section 56(2)(viib

VALENCIA NUTRITION LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS VALENCIA NUTRITION PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 473/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K.And Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri B.R. Sudheendra, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manjeet Singh, D.R
Section 56(2)(viib)

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 6. The facts relating to the case are discussed in brief. The assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacturing of energy drinks with brand name “Bounce & Vita-Me”. During financial year relevant to the assessment year 2015-16, the assessee company has issued 24538 shares having face value

VALENCIA NUTRITION LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS VALENCIA NUTRITION PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 474/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K.And Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri B.R. Sudheendra, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manjeet Singh, D.R
Section 56(2)(viib)

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 6. The facts relating to the case are discussed in brief. The assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacturing of energy drinks with brand name “Bounce & Vita-Me”. During financial year relevant to the assessment year 2015-16, the assessee company has issued 24538 shares having face value

M/S MAJJU IMAGE & BRAND CONSULTANTS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , BANGALORE

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

ITA 2015/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Majju Image & Brand Consultants Pvt. Ltd., The Pr. No. G1, Accolade Commissioner Of Apartments, Income Tax, Millers Road, 2Nd Cross, Bangalore – 4, Benson Town, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 046. Pan: Aaicm6586E Appellant Respondent : Shri B.S. Balachandran, Assessee By Advocate : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order U/S. 263 Dated 25/01/2018 Passed By Ld.Pr.Cit, Bangalore – 4 For A.Y. 2014-15 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Impugned Revisionary Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Pcit) U/S.263 Dated; 25-01-2018 Is Opposed To The Facts Of The Case & The Law & Therefore, It Is Liable To Be Set-Aside.

For Respondent: Shri B.S. Balachandran
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263

condonation of delay. 4. The Ld.AR submitted that, all the issues alleged by assessee in the present appeal is against invoking the revisionary jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act. He submitted that, the assessment order dated 20/06/2016 cannot be held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue, as the Ld.AO specifically called for the details in respect

M/S. CANVERA DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 2(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 316/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Nov 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A.K Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, JCIT (DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 56(2)(viib)

section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. 6. Aggrieved by the addition, assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A). 7. Ld.CIT(A) was of the opinion that the primary onus to prove the correctness of the valuation report is on assessee as he has special knowledge is privy to the facts of the company and only assessee has opted for this

G S FARM TAAZA PRODUCE PRIVATE LIMITED.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (OSD), RANGE-3(1), BENGALURU

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

ITA 1255/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri BS Balachandran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V Parithivel, JCIT (DR)
Section 154Section 250Section 56(2)(viib)

delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned and proceed to adjudicate the issue on merit. 4.3 At the outset, the ld. AR submitted that the amount involved in dispute in ground No. 3 is miniscule and therefore, he has been instructed by the assessee such a ground of appeal raised in the memo of appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE- 1(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S. ANTARIKSH SOFTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

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

ITA 2534/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaranassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, Advocate
Section 10Section 14Section 21Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viib)

56(2)(vii), the excess amount of share premium received on allotment of equity shares. 3. Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) is right in accepting the additional evidence submitted during the course of appellate proceedings without ITA 2534/Bang/2019 Page 2 of 6 giving an opportunity