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.

225 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 200A(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Patna466Chennai431Pune371Bangalore225Delhi216Mumbai95Nagpur69Visakhapatnam59Cochin39Hyderabad37Jaipur26Karnataka21Dehradun19Surat19Kerala17Panaji10Kolkata10Agra8Indore8Lucknow8Rajkot8Raipur6Amritsar6Chandigarh4Jabalpur2Guwahati2Ahmedabad1Jodhpur1

Key Topics

Section 234E496Section 200A263Section 200242Section 206C145TDS99Deduction50Section 200(3)48Section 20148Section 250

M/S. CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER,SHIVAMOGGA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD, DAVANGERE

The appeals are partly allowed to the aforesaid extent

ITA 882/BANG/2023[26Q/Quarter-4/2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jan 2024

Bench: Shri George George Kshri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Pai, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Nischal B, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 250

condone the delay in filing the appeal after relying on the above judgment. ITA Nos.882-890/Bang/2023 Page 10 of 17 19. Coming to the merit of the case, the sole issue involved in all these appeals are with regard to dismissing the appeal of the assessee by the CIT(A) for challenging the fee imposed u/s 234(E) for delay

VEENA SOMANI ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC TDS , GHAZIABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for Assessment

Showing 1–20 of 225 · Page 1 of 12

...
34
Section 271H32
Condonation of Delay29
Limitation/Time-bar28
ITA 2823/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed
ITAT Bangalore
04 Jun 2019
AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P. V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT
Section 154Section 200(1)Section 200ASection 200A(1)(c)Section 234E

200A of the Act dated 21.11.2013 levying fees of Rs.5800/- under section 234E of the Act. On appeal, the CIT(A)-10, Bangalore, vide order dated 25.07.2018 dismissed the assessee’s appeal, in limine, by not condoning the delay of almost 3

VEENA SOMANI ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC TDS , GHAZIABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for Assessment

ITA 2822/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jun 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P. V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT
Section 154Section 200(1)Section 200ASection 200A(1)(c)Section 234E

200A of the Act dated 21.11.2013 levying fees of Rs.5800/- under section 234E of the Act. On appeal, the CIT(A)-10, Bangalore, vide order dated 25.07.2018 dismissed the assessee’s appeal, in limine, by not condoning the delay of almost 3

DR C FERNANDES CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED ,UTTARA KANNADA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-12(4), UTTARA KANNADA

In the result, all nine appeals filed by the assessee for Assessment

ITA 1484/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Ms. Pratiksha Pai, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P. V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT
Section 200ASection 234E

3) that too by expressly put bar for penalty under Section 272A by insertion of proviso to Section. 272A(2), it can be said that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under Section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A payable under Section 234E

DR C FERNANDES CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED ,UTTARA KANNADA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL PROCESSING CELL-TDS , UTTARA PRADESH

In the result, all nine appeals filed by the assessee for Assessment

ITA 1482/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Ms. Pratiksha Pai, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P. V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT
Section 200ASection 234E

3) that too by expressly put bar for penalty under Section 272A by insertion of proviso to Section. 272A(2), it can be said that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under Section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A payable under Section 234E

DR C FERNANDES CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED ,UTTARA KANNADA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL PROCESSING CELL TDS , UTTARA KANNADA

In the result, all nine appeals filed by the assessee for Assessment

ITA 1487/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Ms. Pratiksha Pai, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P. V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT
Section 200ASection 234E

3) that too by expressly put bar for penalty under Section 272A by insertion of proviso to Section. 272A(2), it can be said that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under Section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A payable under Section 234E

DR C FERNANDES CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED ,UTTARA KANNADA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL PROCESSING CELL TDS , UTTARA KANNADA

In the result, all nine appeals filed by the assessee for Assessment

ITA 1485/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Ms. Pratiksha Pai, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P. V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT
Section 200ASection 234E

3) that too by expressly put bar for penalty under Section 272A by insertion of proviso to Section. 272A(2), it can be said that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under Section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A payable under Section 234E

DR C FERNANDES CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED ,UTTARA KANNADA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL PROCESSING CELL TDS , UTTARA KANNADA

In the result, all nine appeals filed by the assessee for Assessment

ITA 1486/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Ms. Pratiksha Pai, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P. V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT
Section 200ASection 234E

3) that too by expressly put bar for penalty under Section 272A by insertion of proviso to Section. 272A(2), it can be said that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under Section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A payable under Section 234E

DR C FERNANDES CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED ,UTTARA KANNADA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL PROCESSING CELL TDS , UTTARA KANNADA

In the result, all nine appeals filed by the assessee for Assessment

ITA 1488/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Ms. Pratiksha Pai, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P. V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT
Section 200ASection 234E

3) that too by expressly put bar for penalty under Section 272A by insertion of proviso to Section. 272A(2), it can be said that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under Section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A payable under Section 234E

DR C FERNANDES CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED ,UTTARA KANNADA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL PROCESSING CELL-TDS ,, UTTARA KANNADA

In the result, all nine appeals filed by the assessee for Assessment

ITA 1483/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Ms. Pratiksha Pai, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P. V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT
Section 200ASection 234E

3) that too by expressly put bar for penalty under Section 272A by insertion of proviso to Section. 272A(2), it can be said that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under Section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A payable under Section 234E

DR C FERNANDES CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY ,UTTARA KANNADA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL PROCESSING CELL TDS , UTTARA KANNADA

In the result, all nine appeals filed by the assessee for Assessment

ITA 1490/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jan 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Ms. Pratiksha Pai, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P. V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT
Section 200ASection 234E

3) that too by expressly put bar for penalty under Section 272A by insertion of proviso to Section. 272A(2), it can be said that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under Section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A payable under Section 234E

DR C FERNANDES CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED ,UTTARA KANNADA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL PROCESSING CELL TDS , UTTARA KANNADA

In the result, all nine appeals filed by the assessee for Assessment

ITA 1489/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jan 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Ms. Pratiksha Pai, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P. V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT
Section 200ASection 234E

3) that too by expressly put bar for penalty under Section 272A by insertion of proviso to Section. 272A(2), it can be said that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under Section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A payable under Section 234E

ROOMAN TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)& TDS, BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 536/BANG/2025[2015-16 Q 3]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Vinod Gard, CAFor Respondent: Shri. R. Rajamanohar, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 2Section 200ASection 234ESection 271(1)(a)Section 271H

delay in filing the appeal which is as under: 3. On going through the above condonation petition that the assessee had reasonable cause for not to file appeal within the speicified date and the reasons have been explained. Therefore, relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji

ROOMAN TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD., ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 534/BANG/2025[2015-16 Q1]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Vinod Gard, CAFor Respondent: Shri. R. Rajamanohar, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 2Section 200ASection 234ESection 271(1)(a)Section 271H

delay in filing the appeal which is as under: 3. On going through the above condonation petition that the assessee had reasonable cause for not to file appeal within the speicified date and the reasons have been explained. Therefore, relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji

ROOMAN TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 533/BANG/2025[2015-16 Q4]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Vinod Gard, CAFor Respondent: Shri. R. Rajamanohar, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 2Section 200ASection 234ESection 271(1)(a)Section 271H

delay in filing the appeal which is as under: 3. On going through the above condonation petition that the assessee had reasonable cause for not to file appeal within the speicified date and the reasons have been explained. Therefore, relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji

ROOMAN TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1),, BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 535/BANG/2025[2015-16 Q2]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Vinod Gard, CAFor Respondent: Shri. R. Rajamanohar, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 2Section 200ASection 234ESection 271(1)(a)Section 271H

delay in filing the appeal which is as under: 3. On going through the above condonation petition that the assessee had reasonable cause for not to file appeal within the speicified date and the reasons have been explained. Therefore, relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji

M/S. VTH SOURCE COMPONENTS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS-3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessees is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2620/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri V Sudheendranath, ARFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshini Mishra, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 154Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 201Section 206CSection 234E

section 200A(1) was substituted by the Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 1.6.2015. The assessee contended that AO could levy fee u/s.234E of the Act while processing a return of TDS filed u/s.200(3) of the Act only by virtue of the provisions of Sec.200A(1)(c), (d) & (f) of the Act and those provisions came into force only from

KOOUD SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 82/BANG/2022[2013-14 (24Q-QII)]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Mar 2022

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Tyagi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh D, JCIT(DR)
Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234Section 234E

condoned in filing these appeals and the appeals are deemed to be filed in time for further adjudication. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a private limited company. The DCIT, CPC, Bangalore (AO) has passed the orders u/s 200A(1) the Act levying late fee towards the delay in filing the TDS returns

MINDLOGICX INFRATEC LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all these appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 472/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri. Hemanth, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Narayana. K. R, Addl. DIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 154Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 201Section 206CSection 234E

condonation in delay in the appeal, the appeal itself is not maintainable. (iv) Since there was an inordinate delay in filing the appeal and no sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal has been shown by the assessee, the appeal is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay in filing the appeal. 8. For the above

MINDLOGICX INFRATEC LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all these appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 471/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri. Hemanth, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Narayana. K. R, Addl. DIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 154Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 201Section 206CSection 234E

condonation in delay in the appeal, the appeal itself is not maintainable. (iv) Since there was an inordinate delay in filing the appeal and no sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal has been shown by the assessee, the appeal is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay in filing the appeal. 8. For the above