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.

162 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 77clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai346Mumbai292Delhi226Kolkata219Bangalore162Pune162Hyderabad154Ahmedabad145Karnataka127Jaipur104Chandigarh69Visakhapatnam58Indore43Surat41Calcutta39Cuttack28Lucknow27Cochin24Patna21Raipur21Nagpur20Kerala17Guwahati17SC15Rajkot14Amritsar13Telangana10Panaji8Agra5Jodhpur5Jabalpur4Allahabad4Orissa3Varanasi2Himachal Pradesh2Andhra Pradesh1Ranchi1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 234E54Addition to Income49Section 26348Section 20045Section 15439Deduction34Disallowance32Section 14831Section 143(3)

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 162 · Page 1 of 9

...
30
Section 14729
Section 206C27
Condonation of Delay24

THE KARNATAKA STATE REGN AND STAMPS DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS MULTI-PURPOSE CO-OP SOCIETY LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BENGALURU

ITA 1518/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian – JCIT DR
Section 57

delay of 282 days deserves to be condoned and appeal of the Assessee is admitted as it is for sufficient cause. 12. The fact of the case shows that Assessee is a Co-operative society filed its return of income on 21.10.2017 at Rs. Nil/-. This return was selected for scrutiny for verification of deduction under chapter

SREESHARADA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,UDUPI vs. ITO WARD- 1&TPS , UDUPI

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

ITA 1315/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 80

delay condoned and appeals admitted. Page 10 of 19 12. Briefly stated the facts for assessment year 2018 – 19 shows that assessee filed its return of income at Rs. Nil on 26 September 2018. The return was picked up for limited scrutiny assessment for verification of deduction from total income under chapter VI – A. Notice under section

SREESHARADA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,UDUPI vs. ITO WARD- 1&TPS , UDUPI

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

ITA 1316/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 80

delay condoned and appeals admitted. Page 10 of 19 12. Briefly stated the facts for assessment year 2018 – 19 shows that assessee filed its return of income at Rs. Nil on 26 September 2018. The return was picked up for limited scrutiny assessment for verification of deduction from total income under chapter VI – A. Notice under section

M/S. ARHAM MITRA MANDAL,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTIONS)-WARD-1, BANGALORE

ITA 1110/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Kumar Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 119Section 119(2)(b)Section 250

condonation application filed by the assessee. Post the rejection of application, assessee filed the present appeal before the Tribunal on 11.12.2023. 5. The issue raised in the appeal before the Tribunal is with regard to the denial of section 11 of the Act on account of delay in filing the audit report within the due date prescribed. For identical issue

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

77,379/-. The assessment for Assessment Year 2012-13 was concluded by the AO on 30.09.2016. In so far Assessment Year 2013-14 is concerned, on 11.03.2016 the AO passed an Order of Assessment in which he denied the benefit of deduction under section 10(37) of the Act to the assessee and also the benefit of deduction under section

PREM PRAKASH GUPTA ,BANGALORE vs. ITO, WARD-6(2)(2), BANGALORE

Appeal of the assessee stands dismissed as not admitted

ITA 53/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Revenue
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 69A

delay of 375 days. The necessary defect memo stating that appeal is time barred was sent to assessee on 17.6.2025. 3. The assessee filed condonation petition on 30.5.2025 along with Affidavit of assessee. The condonation petition submits as under:- “1. The appellant individual was assessed to income of Rs.37,77,330/- vide order dt:29.12.2019 passed under section

AUGUST JEWELLERY PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE 1(1)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

ITA 1419/BANG/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri. Miraj Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri. Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 271ASection 68

Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on account of share capital and share premium received in the earlier years and no credit was received in the current year. Hence, the same be deleted. 4) That the learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining an ad-hoc disallowance of 24,06,60,000, being 20% of the total expenses, without

AUGUST JEWELLERY PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE 1(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

ITA 1420/BANG/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri. Miraj Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri. Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 270ASection 271ASection 68

Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on account of share capital and share premium received in the earlier years and no credit was received in the current year. Hence, the same be deleted. 4) That the learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining an ad-hoc disallowance of 24,06,60,000, being 20% of the total expenses, without

AUGUST JEWELLERY PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE 1(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

ITA 1457/BANG/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri. Miraj Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri. Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 271ASection 68

Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on account of share capital and share premium received in the earlier years and no credit was received in the current year. Hence, the same be deleted. 4) That the learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining an ad-hoc disallowance of *24,06,60,000, being 20% of the total expenses, without

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. M/S. BANGALORE CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, BENGALURU

ITA 2347/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Respondent: Sri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.R
Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

delay is condoned; and the Appeals & the Cos for both the Asst. years are admitted for adjudication. 7. Further, the assessee has filed additional ground in the grounds of cross objection as ground no. 8. During the course of the proceedings before us, the 1d. AR of the assessee did not press Ground No. 7 & additional ground No.8 & pray

SHRI. G K RAVI,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

ITA 2269/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

77,27,904 | 1,03,90,104/- | 2016-17 | 153C did. 27.09.2021 | 2,47,57,950/- | 3,38,45,591 | 5,86,03,541/- | 2017-18 | 153C dtd. 27.09.2021 | 1,36,81,870/- | 91,75,100 | 2,28,56,970/- | 2018-19 | 153C

SHRI. G. K RAVI ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT/DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

ITA 2264/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

77,27,904 1,03,90,104/- 2016-17 153C dtd. 27.09.2021 2,47,57,950/- 3,38,45,591 5,86,03,541/- 2017-18 153C dtd. 27.09.2021 1,36,81,870/- 91,75,100 2,28,56,970/- 2018-19 153C

SHRI. G K RAVI,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

ITA 2267/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

77,27,904 1,03,90,104/- 2016-17 153C did. 27.09.2021 2,47,57,950/- 3,38,45,591 5,86,03,541/- 2017-18 153C dtd. 27.09.2021 1,36,81,870/- 91,75,100 2,28,56,970/- 2018-19 153C

GOTTIGERE KRISHNAPPA RAVI,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

ITA 1159/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

77,27,904 1,03,90,104/- 2016-17 153C did. 27.09.2021 2,47,57,950/- 3,38,45,591 5,86,03,541/- 2017-18 153C dtd. 27.09.2021 1,36,81,870/- 91,75,100 2,28,56,970/- 2018-19 153C

SHRI. G K RAVI,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

ITA 2268/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

77,27,904 | 1,03,90,104/- | | 2016-17 | 153C dtd. 27.09.2021 | 2,47,57,950/- | 3,38,45,591 | 5,86,03,541/- | | 2017-18 | 153C dtd. 27.09.2021 | 1,36,81,870/- | 91,75,100 | 2,28,56,970/- | | 2018-19 | 153C

SHRI. G K RAVI,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

ITA 2265/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

77,27,904 | 1,03,90,104/- | | 2016-17 | 153C did. 27.09.2021 | 2,47,57,950/- | 3,38,45,591 | 5,86,03,541/- | | 2017-18 | 153C dtd. 27.09.2021 | 1,36,81,870/- | 91,75,100 | 2,28,56,970/- | | 2018-19 | 153C

M/S. KANYAKAPARAMESHWARI CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,CHITRADURGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, CHITRADURGA

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

ITA 2900/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year :2012-13

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri L.V. Bhaskar Reddy, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 234Section 56Section 80Section 80P

section 234 B of the Act is also bad in law as the period, rate, quantum and method of calculation adopted on which interest is levied are all not discernible and are wrong on the facts of the case. 8. The appellant craves Leave to add, alter, substitute and delete any or all of the grounds of appeal urged above

ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

ITA 296/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

For Appellant: Shri Jairam Raipura, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Annamalli & Shri Narendra Sharma, A.Rs
Section 154

condone this inordinate delay of 1694 days and the appeal is dismissed unadmitted. Accordingly, we decline to admit the appeal and dismiss the appeal in limine. IT(TP)A No.296, 468 & 1119/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.621 & 694/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A No.1674/Bang/2018 & IT(TP)A No.582/Bang/2021 Page 7 of 34 ITA No.468/Bang/2015 (A.Y. 2010-11) (Assessee’s appeal):- 4. Grounds urged

M/S. TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU, CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

ITA 582/BANG/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

For Appellant: Shri Jairam Raipura, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Annamalli & Shri Narendra Sharma, A.Rs
Section 154

condone this inordinate delay of 1694 days and the appeal is dismissed unadmitted. Accordingly, we decline to admit the appeal and dismiss the appeal in limine. IT(TP)A No.296, 468 & 1119/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.621 & 694/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A No.1674/Bang/2018 & IT(TP)A No.582/Bang/2021 Page 7 of 34 ITA No.468/Bang/2015 (A.Y. 2010-11) (Assessee’s appeal):- 4. Grounds urged