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 234E(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Patna466Chennai392Pune375Delhi224Bangalore212Cochin93Mumbai84Nagpur82Visakhapatnam59Hyderabad36Jaipur25Dehradun21Karnataka21Kolkata11Panaji10Amritsar10Lucknow10Agra8Indore8Rajkot8Raipur6Surat5Chandigarh4Guwahati2Ahmedabad2Ranchi2Jodhpur1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 234E40Section 200A26Section 25020Section 200A(1)16TDS10Condonation of Delay5Section 2494Section 2004Natural Justice

GULMARG DEVLOPMENT AUTHORITY ,BARAMULA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ( TDS), SRINAGAR

Appeals are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

ITA 111/ASR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Mohd. Iqbal Untoo, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR
Section 200ASection 234Section 234E

2 2nd 26Q 31-10-2017 01.11.2017 18.11.2017 1 200.00 2nd 27EQ 15.10.2017 28.10.2017 03.11.2017 2400.00 12 4th 24Q 15.05.2018 31.08.2018 09.10.2018 92 18400.00 4th 26Q 15.05.2018 19.06.2018 02.07.2018 19 3800.00 TOTAL AMOUNT OF LATE FEE Rs 25,200/- Gulmarg Development Authority v. ITO(TDS) 3. Thus, TDS-CPC has imposed a late fee u/s 234E amounting

SURJIT MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,FEROZEPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD ( EXEMPTIONS), AMRITSAR

4
Limitation/Time-bar4
Section 2213
Section 2342

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 189/ASR/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 200ASection 234ESection 250

delay for 30 days is condoned. 4. When the appeal was called for hearing, none was present. On perusal of record, we find that the assessee filed an adjournment petition and assessee was I.T.A. No. 189/Asr/2022 3 Assessment Year: 2015-16 unable to represent the matter because assessee’s counsel for out of state. The issue is well settled

SANT SOLIDER ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC-TDS, GHAZIBAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee through in ITA Nos

ITA 30/ASR/2021[2014-15,Q-4]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar03 Dec 2021

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad

Section 200Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234ESection 249Section 250

2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(Appeals) has erred in not condoning the delay in filing of appeal dismissing the appeal as unadmitted. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the CIT(A) has erred in not exercising the discretion vested upon him by virtue of section

SANT SOLDIER ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee through in ITA Nos

ITA 26/ASR/2021[2013-14,Q-2]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar03 Dec 2021

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad

Section 200Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234ESection 249Section 250

2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(Appeals) has erred in not condoning the delay in filing of appeal dismissing the appeal as unadmitted. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the CIT(A) has erred in not exercising the discretion vested upon him by virtue of section

SANT SOLIDER ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC-TDS, GHAZIBAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee through in ITA Nos

ITA 29/ASR/2021[2014-15.Q-4]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar03 Dec 2021

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad

Section 200Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234ESection 249Section 250

2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(Appeals) has erred in not condoning the delay in filing of appeal dismissing the appeal as unadmitted. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the CIT(A) has erred in not exercising the discretion vested upon him by virtue of section

SANT SOLDIER ENGINEERS AND CONTRCTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .CPC-TDS, GHAZIBAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee through in ITA Nos

ITA 28/ASR/2021[2013-14.Q-4]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar03 Dec 2021

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad

Section 200Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234ESection 249Section 250

2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(Appeals) has erred in not condoning the delay in filing of appeal dismissing the appeal as unadmitted. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the CIT(A) has erred in not exercising the discretion vested upon him by virtue of section

GULMARG DEVLOPMENT AUTHORITY ,BARAMULA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ( TDS) , SRINAGAR

ITA 107/ASR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 221Section 250

2. The appellant being the DDO had never before received the order under section 250 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre and came to know of the fact as on 17.02.2023, when the appellant/DDO received the phone call from the jurisdictional ITO TDS SRINAGAR regarding the initiation of recovery proceedings of outstanding demand of Rs 17,25,946/- against

GULMARG DEVLOPMENT AUTHORITY ,BARAMULA vs. INCOME TAX OFICER ( TDS), SRINAGAR

ITA 108/ASR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 221Section 250

2. The appellant being the DDO had never before received the order under section 250 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre and came to know of the fact as on 17.02.2023, when the appellant/DDO received the phone call from the jurisdictional ITO TDS SRINAGAR regarding the initiation of recovery proceedings of outstanding demand of Rs 17,25,946/- against

GULMARG DEVLOPMENT AUTHORITY,BARAMULA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ( TDS), SRINAGAR

ITA 109/ASR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 221Section 250

2. The appellant being the DDO had never before received the order under section 250 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre and came to know of the fact as on 17.02.2023, when the appellant/DDO received the phone call from the jurisdictional ITO TDS SRINAGAR regarding the initiation of recovery proceedings of outstanding demand of Rs 17,25,946/- against

M/S. IQBAL MEMORIAL TRUST ,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ( TDS), SRINAGAR

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

ITA 68/ASR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar17 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 12ASection 154Section 200ASection 200A(1)(a)Section 200A(1)(b)Section 234E

234E of the Income Tax Act for the returns filed prior to 2 Iqbal Memorial Trust v. ITO 01.06.2015. There was a delay of six days in filing the appeal on account of delay in delivery of the appeal by the Postal Law Authority which beyond the control of the assessee. He stated that the appeal was sent by speed