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.

155 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 86clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai404Mumbai335Kolkata258Delhi249Ahmedabad168Bangalore155Pune139Karnataka126Hyderabad124Jaipur112Chandigarh71Nagpur70Cuttack41Indore38Calcutta37Surat36Visakhapatnam36Cochin32Lucknow23Kerala17Jodhpur14Rajkot14Patna10SC10Guwahati9Amritsar9Raipur8Panaji8Allahabad4Telangana3Agra3Jabalpur2Himachal Pradesh2Varanasi2Rajasthan1Orissa1Andhra Pradesh1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Ranchi1

Key Topics

Section 26356Addition to Income54Section 143(3)36Disallowance32Condonation of Delay30Section 10A27Section 14725Section 153A25Deduction

SHRI. VIRUPAXAPPA SIDDAPPA UDNUR,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(2), BENGALURU

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

ITA 820/BANG/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 234DSection 250

86,500/- as determined by the learned assessing officer and confirmed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] as against the Shri Virupaxappa Siddappa Udnur, Bangalore Page 2 of 9 correct income of 1,60,180/ - declared by the Appellant under the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] erred 3. in confirming

M/S. BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1)(2), BANGALORE

Showing 1–20 of 155 · Page 1 of 8

...
24
Section 25022
Section 14421
Section 6820

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

ITA 1111/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., The Deputy 3Rd Floor, Bmtc Commissioner Of Complex, Income Tax, K H Road, Circle – 1 [1][2], Shanti Nagar, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 027. Pan: Aaacb4881D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sreehari Kutsa, Advocate : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 25-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 26/02/2019 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2010-11 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act In So Far As It Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities & The Facts & Circumstances In The Appellant'S Case. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Is Not Justified In Refusing To Admit The Appeal Of The Appellant On The Grounds That Delay In Filing Of The Appeal Cannot Be Condoned On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri Sreehari Kutsa, Advocate
Section 234BSection 234DSection 250

section 250 of the Act in so far as it is against the Appellant is opposed to law, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities and the facts and circumstances in the Appellant's case. 2. The learned CIT(A) is not justified in refusing to admit the appeal of the Appellant on the grounds that delay in filing of the appeal

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

condone the delay of filing this appeal and proceed to dispose off the same on merits. 8. Brief facts of the case are as follows: Assessee is a Public Charitable Trust registered under section 12A of the Act w.e.f. 28.02.2002. Assessee is helping the poor by providing food, conducting medical / health camps, etc. For the Assessment Year

SREE JESHTA LAXMI WELFARE AND CHARITABLE TRUST ,BANGALORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1803/BANG/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2026-27 M/S. Sree Jeshta Laxmi Welfare & Vs. Cit (Exemptions), Charitable Trust, Unity Building Annexe, No.50, Karnataka Layout, Mission Road, 2Nd Cross, Basaveshwara Nagar, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 079. Pan : Aakts 9479 B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Rajeev Nulvi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Muthu Shankar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 12A

86 days may be condoned as it is sufficient reason. 4. The learned CIT(A) (learned DR) Mr. Muthu Shankar vehemently submitted that there is no sufficient cause shown by the assessee. Hence, delay may not be condoned. 5. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the application for condonation of delay. We find that the Order

UBMC TRUST ASSOCIATION,UDUPI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS WARD-1, MANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee stands allowed on the legal issue raised in the additional ground

ITA 694/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri Ravi Shankar .S.V
Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 234ASection 250

section 250 of the Act before this Hon'ble Tribunal and hear the same on merits for the advancement of substantial cause of justice. i. The appellant humbly prays that this Horilple Tribunal considering the facts of the present case takes lenient and compassionate view and condone the delay in filing the present appeal against the order passed

UBMC TRUST ASSOCIATION,UDUPI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS WARD-1, MANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee stands allowed on the legal issue raised in the additional ground

ITA 693/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri Ravi Shankar .S.V
Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 234ASection 250

section 250 of the Act before this Hon'ble Tribunal and hear the same on merits for the advancement of substantial cause of justice. i. The appellant humbly prays that this Horilple Tribunal considering the facts of the present case takes lenient and compassionate view and condone the delay in filing the present appeal against the order passed

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)

Section, the fact remains that the petitioner has substantiated that injustice is being done by not following the Division Bench decision of this Court. Therefore, in order to do substantial justice, this Court exercising the power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India can condone the delay as held by the Division Bench of this Court

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE,CHAMARAJNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHAMARAJNAGAR

In the result Appeals of the Assessee are allowed and stay petitions are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 2806/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Apr 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sounadararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Balusamy. N – JCIT & Shri Raghu, ITO
Section 10Section 147Section 148

delay in filing, without condonation. Consequently, these Appeals are considered collectively under this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. For the Assessment Year 2015-16, a lead Appeal has been filed against the Appellate Order issued by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (the ITA Nos. 2805 to 2808/Bang/2025 SA No. 29-32/Bang/2026 The Agriculture Produce marketing

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE,CHAMARAJANAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHAMARAJANAGAR

In the result Appeals of the Assessee are allowed and stay petitions are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 2808/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Apr 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sounadararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Balusamy. N – JCIT & Shri Raghu, ITO
Section 10Section 147Section 148

delay in filing, without condonation. Consequently, these Appeals are considered collectively under this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. For the Assessment Year 2015-16, a lead Appeal has been filed against the Appellate Order issued by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (the ITA Nos. 2805 to 2808/Bang/2025 SA No. 29-32/Bang/2026 The Agriculture Produce marketing

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE,CHAMARAJNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHAMARAJNAGAR

In the result Appeals of the Assessee are allowed and stay petitions are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 2807/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Apr 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sounadararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Balusamy. N – JCIT & Shri Raghu, ITO
Section 10Section 147Section 148

delay in filing, without condonation. Consequently, these Appeals are considered collectively under this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. For the Assessment Year 2015-16, a lead Appeal has been filed against the Appellate Order issued by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (the ITA Nos. 2805 to 2808/Bang/2025 SA No. 29-32/Bang/2026 The Agriculture Produce marketing

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITEE,CHAMARAJANAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHAMARAJNAGAR

In the result Appeals of the Assessee are allowed and stay petitions are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 2805/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Apr 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sounadararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Balusamy. N – JCIT & Shri Raghu, ITO
Section 10Section 147Section 148

delay in filing, without condonation. Consequently, these Appeals are considered collectively under this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. For the Assessment Year 2015-16, a lead Appeal has been filed against the Appellate Order issued by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (the ITA Nos. 2805 to 2808/Bang/2025 SA No. 29-32/Bang/2026 The Agriculture Produce marketing

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.

86,03,541/- | 2017-18 | 153C dtd. 27.09.2021 | 1,36,81,870/- | 91,75,100 | 2,28,56,970/- | 2018-19 | 153C dtd. 27.09.2021 | 4,05,85,590/- | 1,53,09,694 | 5,58,95,234/- | 2019-20 | 143(3) did. 27.09.2021 | 1,01,56,742/- | 1,93,23,032 | 2,92,59,772/- 5.0 The appeals for the relevant

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.

86,03,541/- 2017-18 153C dtd. 27.09.2021 1,36,81,870/- 91,75,100 2,28,56,970/- 2018-19 153C dtd. 27.09.2021 4,05,85,590/- 1,53,09,694 5,58,95,234/- 2019-20 143(3) did. 27.09.2021 1,01,56,742/- 1,93,23,032 2,92,59,772/- 5.0 The appeals for the relevant

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.

86,03,541/- 2017-18 153C dtd. 27.09.2021 1,36,81,870/- 91,75,100 2,28,56,970/- 2018-19 153C dtd. 27.09.2021 4,05,85,590/- 1,53,09,694 5,58,95,234/- 2019-20 143(3) did. 27.09.2021 1,01,56,742/- 1,93,23,032 2,92,59,772/- 5.0 The appeals for the relevant

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.

86,03,541/- 2017-18 153C dtd. 27.09.2021 1,36,81,870/- 91,75,100 2,28,56,970/- 2018-19 153C dtd. 27.09.2021 4,05,85,590/- 1,53,09,694 5,58,95,234/- 2019-20 143(3) did. 27.09.2021 1,01,56,742/- 1,93,23,032 2,92,59,772/- 5.0 The appeals for the relevant

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.

86,03,541/- | | 2017-18 | 153C dtd. 27.09.2021 | 1,36,81,870/- | 91,75,100 | 2,28,56,970/- | | 2018-19 | 153C dtd. 27.09.2021 | 4,05,85,590/- | 1,53,09,694 | 5,58,95,234/- | | 2019-20 | 143(3) did. 27.09.2021 | 1,01,56,742/- | 1,93,23,032 | 2,92,59,772/- | 5.0 The appeals for the relevant

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.

86,03,541/- | | 2017-18 | 153C dtd. 27.09.2021 | 1,36,81,870/- | 91,75,100 | 2,28,56,970/- | | 2018-19 | 153C dtd. 27.09.2021 | 4,05,85,590/- | 1,53,09,694 | 5,58,95,234/- | | 2019-20 | 143(3) did. 27.09.2021 | 1,01,56,742/- | 1,93,23,032 | 2,92,59,772/- | 5.0 The appeals for the relevant

M/S DESAI & CO.,HUBBALLI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), HUBBALLI

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

ITA 152/BANG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Shankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 249Section 250Section 36Section 40Section 40A

condone the delay of about 86 days delay in filing the appeal as per the provisions of Section 249 [3] without

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICE, WARD-5(2)(1), BENGALURU

ITA 1052/BANG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri K. Sheshadri, CA &For Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT – DR
Section 2Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

86-87 of the PB vol.1. It is further submitted that, The Government of Karnataka who is also a shareholder of the assessee. 2.4 The Ld.AR submitted that the lending of the of the assessee is thus to: (a)PCARD banks who are assessee's members (A Class Members), (b)Nominal members who are also the assessee's members

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

ITA 2266/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Si. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

86,03,541/- 2017-18 153C dtd. 27.09.2021 1,36,81,870/- 91,75,100 2,28,56,970/- 2018-19 153C dtd. 27.09.2021 4,05,85,590/- 1,53,09,694 5,58,95,234/- 2019-20 143(3) did. 27.09.2021 1,01,56,742/- 1,93,23,032 2,92,59,772/- 5.0 The appeals for the relevant