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.

156 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 139(4)clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai751Mumbai508Delhi493Kolkata444Bangalore340Jaipur239Hyderabad227Pune215Ahmedabad214Karnataka156Chandigarh135Indore106Surat102Cochin87Nagpur79Lucknow74Amritsar69Visakhapatnam61Raipur41Calcutta40Cuttack35Rajkot33Guwahati27Patna26Allahabad18Jodhpur17Agra16Panaji15Jabalpur12Varanasi11SC10Dehradun9Telangana6Ranchi2Orissa2Himachal Pradesh1Rajasthan1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 234E84Section 26038TDS21Section 8013Section 1398Section 119(2)(b)7Section 1486Deduction6Condonation of Delay

THOMBATHU MILK PRODUCERS vs. PRL COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP/28873/2019HC Karnataka19 Sept 2019

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice P.B. Bajanthri

condonation of delay in filing their respective returns before the authority to claim deduction under Section 80P of the Act or not? 8. Undisputed facts are that, petitioners’ Societies which has actively commenced only during the financial year 2017-2018 and the assessment year being 2018-19 and for the first time, they have filed returns under Section 139 (4

NAVANIDHI VIVIDHODDESHA vs. PRL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP/29110/2019HC Karnataka19 Sept 2019

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice P.B. Bajanthri

condonation of delay in filing their respective returns before the authority to claim deduction under Section 80P of the Act or not? 8. Undisputed facts are that, petitioners’ Societies which has actively commenced only during the financial year 2017-2018 and the assessment year being 2018-19 and for the first time, they have filed returns under Section 139 (4

Showing 1–20 of 156 · Page 1 of 8

...
6
Section 80H5
Section 94
Double Taxation/DTAA4

K M CREDIT SOUHARDA SAHAKARI LTD vs. PRL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP/29580/2019HC Karnataka19 Sept 2019

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice P.B. Bajanthri

condonation of delay in filing their respective returns before the authority to claim deduction under Section 80P of the Act or not? 8. Undisputed facts are that, petitioners’ Societies which has actively commenced only during the financial year 2017-2018 and the assessment year being 2018-19 and for the first time, they have filed returns under Section 139 (4

KERADI MILK PRODUCERS WOMEN S vs. PRL COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP/28872/2019HC Karnataka19 Sept 2019

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice P.B. Bajanthri

condonation of delay in filing their respective returns before the authority to claim deduction under Section 80P of the Act or not? 8. Undisputed facts are that, petitioners’ Societies which has actively commenced only during the financial year 2017-2018 and the assessment year being 2018-19 and for the first time, they have filed returns under Section 139 (4

PADUMUNDU MILK PRODUCERS WOMEN vs. PRL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP/29584/2019HC Karnataka19 Sept 2019

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice P.B. Bajanthri

condonation of delay in filing their respective returns before the authority to claim deduction under Section 80P of the Act or not? 8. Undisputed facts are that, petitioners’ Societies which has actively commenced only during the financial year 2017-2018 and the assessment year being 2018-19 and for the first time, they have filed returns under Section 139 (4

SASTHAVU HALU UTHPADAKARA MAHILA vs. PRL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP/29583/2019HC Karnataka19 Sept 2019

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice P.B. Bajanthri

condonation of delay in filing their respective returns before the authority to claim deduction under Section 80P of the Act or not? 8. Undisputed facts are that, petitioners’ Societies which has actively commenced only during the financial year 2017-2018 and the assessment year being 2018-19 and for the first time, they have filed returns under Section 139 (4

BIDKALKATTE MILK PRODUCERS ' vs. PRL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP/29109/2019HC Karnataka19 Sept 2019

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice P.B. Bajanthri

condonation of delay in filing their respective returns before the authority to claim deduction under Section 80P of the Act or not? 8. Undisputed facts are that, petitioners’ Societies which has actively commenced only during the financial year 2017-2018 and the assessment year being 2018-19 and for the first time, they have filed returns under Section 139 (4

BALKURU HALU UTHPADAKARA vs. PRL COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP/28871/2019HC Karnataka19 Sept 2019

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice P.B. Bajanthri

condonation of delay in filing their respective returns before the authority to claim deduction under Section 80P of the Act or not? 8. Undisputed facts are that, petitioners’ Societies which has actively commenced only during the financial year 2017-2018 and the assessment year being 2018-19 and for the first time, they have filed returns under Section 139 (4

SHREE GURU NITHYANANDA SOUHARDA vs. PRL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP/29582/2019HC Karnataka19 Sept 2019

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice P.B. Bajanthri

condonation of delay in filing their respective returns before the authority to claim deduction under Section 80P of the Act or not? 8. Undisputed facts are that, petitioners’ Societies which has actively commenced only during the financial year 2017-2018 and the assessment year being 2018-19 and for the first time, they have filed returns under Section 139 (4

PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX-2 vs. M/S.EYGBS (INDIA) PVT LTD

ITA/107/2025HC Karnataka12 Sept 2025

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

Section 10ASection 14ASection 260Section 260A

delay of 46 days in filing the above captioned appeals, is condoned. 2. The Revenue have filed the present appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act], impugning a common order dated 08.11.2024 [impugned order], passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [Tribunal] in ITA No.1367/Bang/2024 in respect of the Assessment Year

M/S UNIQUE SHELTERS PVT LTD vs. UNION OF INDIA

WP/10798/2012HC Karnataka31 Jul 2013

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice Ram Mohan Reddy

Section 119Section 139Section 139(1)Section 80Section 80A

condoning the delay in filing the returns under Subsection (4) of Section 139 of the Act, though required to submit

M/S. THE KOLAR & CHICKBALLAPUR vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER

The appeal stands disposed of as indicated above

ITA/280/2015HC Karnataka01 Sept 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 260Section 260A

4. Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was filed by the assessee before the Tribunal which - 6 - came to be dismissed. Hence, the assessee has preferred this appeal. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/assessee submitted that the denial of set-off of carry forward of loss relying on Section 80 of the Act by all the authorities

ARECANUT PROCESSING AND SALE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, these petitions are allowed

WP/21140/2012HC Karnataka18 Apr 2013

Bench: Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ram Mohan Reddy

Section 119(2)(b)Section 139Section 44ASection 80P

139 of the Act on 23.11.2004 along with an application to condone the delay by invoking Section 119(2)(b) of the Act read with instruction No.12 of 2003 and to process the return and grant refund of the tax amount. 4

M/S SHARAVATHY CONDUCTORS vs. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF

WP/28376/2017HC Karnataka24 Oct 2017

Bench: The Hon’Ble Dr.Justice Vineet Kothari W.P.No.28376/2017 (T-It) Between

Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(5)Section 80HSection 80I

Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1962 (for short 'the Act'). Date of order 24.10.2017 W.P.No.28376/2017 M/s. Sharavathy Conductors Private Limited vs. The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. 3/13 2. The operative portion of the impugned order dated 05.07.2016 is quoted below for ready reference: “4.2 On perusal of the facts and circumstances

M/S PRAKASH BUS CORPORATION PVT LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

WP/37689/2014HC Karnataka12 Jun 2015

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 234E

139,] 143, 144, 147, 148, 154, 155 [158BFA], [sub-section (1A) of Section 201, Sections 210, 211, 234A, 234B, 234C], 271 and 273 or otherwise), general or special orders in respect of any class of incomes [or fringe benefits] or class of cases, setting forth directions or instructions (not being prejudicial to assessees) as to the guidelines, principles or procedures

SRI. FATHERAJ SINGHVI vs. UNION OF INDIA

WP/41614/2014HC Karnataka12 Jun 2015

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 234E

139,] 143, 144, 147, 148, 154, 155 [158BFA], [sub-section (1A) of Section 201, Sections 210, 211, 234A, 234B, 234C], 271 and 273 or otherwise), general or special orders in respect of any class of incomes [or fringe benefits] or class of cases, setting forth directions or instructions (not being prejudicial to assessees) as to the guidelines, principles or procedures

SREE C B EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL TRUST vs. UNION OF INDIA

WP/38127/2014HC Karnataka12 Jun 2015

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 234E

139,] 143, 144, 147, 148, 154, 155 [158BFA], [sub-section (1A) of Section 201, Sections 210, 211, 234A, 234B, 234C], 271 and 273 or otherwise), general or special orders in respect of any class of incomes [or fringe benefits] or class of cases, setting forth directions or instructions (not being prejudicial to assessees) as to the guidelines, principles or procedures

M/S. K K BROTHERS vs. UNION OF INDIA

WP/3725/2014HC Karnataka12 Jun 2015

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 234E

139,] 143, 144, 147, 148, 154, 155 [158BFA], [sub-section (1A) of Section 201, Sections 210, 211, 234A, 234B, 234C], 271 and 273 or otherwise), general or special orders in respect of any class of incomes [or fringe benefits] or class of cases, setting forth directions or instructions (not being prejudicial to assessees) as to the guidelines, principles or procedures

SRI CHANDRAKAR K KAMATH vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

WP/23541/2014HC Karnataka12 Jun 2015

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 234E

139,] 143, 144, 147, 148, 154, 155 [158BFA], [sub-section (1A) of Section 201, Sections 210, 211, 234A, 234B, 234C], 271 and 273 or otherwise), general or special orders in respect of any class of incomes [or fringe benefits] or class of cases, setting forth directions or instructions (not being prejudicial to assessees) as to the guidelines, principles or procedures

M/S MAHRISHI MELTCHEMS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. UNION OF INDIA

WP/53286/2014HC Karnataka12 Jun 2015

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 234E

139,] 143, 144, 147, 148, 154, 155 [158BFA], [sub-section (1A) of Section 201, Sections 210, 211, 234A, 234B, 234C], 271 and 273 or otherwise), general or special orders in respect of any class of incomes [or fringe benefits] or class of cases, setting forth directions or instructions (not being prejudicial to assessees) as to the guidelines, principles or procedures