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.

117 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 206Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Pune157Delhi149Bangalore117Chennai80Raipur39Mumbai25Karnataka22Kolkata18Cochin13Panaji10Rajkot9Dehradun8Lucknow7Hyderabad6Chandigarh6Jodhpur5Jaipur4Amritsar4Ahmedabad3Cuttack3Indore3Nagpur2Varanasi2

Key Topics

Section 234E552Section 200433Section 206C265Section 200A205TDS98Deduction91Section 200(3)87Section 20179Section 271H32Section 154

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

206C which is to be delivered or caused to be delivered for tax deducted at source or tax collected at source, as the case may be, on or after the 1st day of July, 2012.” 3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the assessee filed appeals before the CIT(A). The assessee’s contention before CIT(A) was that the provisions

Showing 1–20 of 117 · Page 1 of 6

28
Condonation of Delay9
Addition to Income7

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

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,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,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

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

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

MS. SEENA DEEPAK,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC -TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2124/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jan 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Nishi Padma, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 201Section 206CSection 234E

206C which is to be delivered or caused to be delivered for tax deducted at source or tax collected at source, as the case may be, on or after the 1st day of July, 2012.” 3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the assessee filed appeals before the CIT(A). The assessee’s contention before CIT(A) was that the provisions

MS. SEENA DEEPAK,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC -TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2130/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Nishi Padma, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 201Section 206CSection 234E

206C which is to be delivered or caused to be delivered for tax deducted at source or tax collected at source, as the case may be, on or after the 1st day of July, 2012.” 3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the assessee filed appeals before the CIT(A). The assessee’s contention before CIT(A) was that the provisions

MS. SEENA DEEPAK,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC - TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2118/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Nishi Padma, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 201Section 206CSection 234E

206C which is to be delivered or caused to be delivered for tax deducted at source or tax collected at source, as the case may be, on or after the 1st day of July, 2012.” 3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the assessee filed appeals before the CIT(A). The assessee’s contention before CIT(A) was that the provisions

MS. SEENA DEEPAK,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC -TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2123/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Nishi Padma, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 201Section 206CSection 234E

206C which is to be delivered or caused to be delivered for tax deducted at source or tax collected at source, as the case may be, on or after the 1st day of July, 2012.” 3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the assessee filed appeals before the CIT(A). The assessee’s contention before CIT(A) was that the provisions

MS. SEENA DEEPAK,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC -TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2126/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Nishi Padma, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 201Section 206CSection 234E

206C which is to be delivered or caused to be delivered for tax deducted at source or tax collected at source, as the case may be, on or after the 1st day of July, 2012.” 3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the assessee filed appeals before the CIT(A). The assessee’s contention before CIT(A) was that the provisions

MS. SEENA DEEPAK,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC -TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2121/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jan 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Nishi Padma, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 201Section 206CSection 234E

206C which is to be delivered or caused to be delivered for tax deducted at source or tax collected at source, as the case may be, on or after the 1st day of July, 2012.” 3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the assessee filed appeals before the CIT(A). The assessee’s contention before CIT(A) was that the provisions

MS. SEENA DEEPAK,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC -TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2132/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Nishi Padma, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 201Section 206CSection 234E

206C which is to be delivered or caused to be delivered for tax deducted at source or tax collected at source, as the case may be, on or after the 1st day of July, 2012.” 3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the assessee filed appeals before the CIT(A). The assessee’s contention before CIT(A) was that the provisions

MS. SEENA DEEPAK,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC - TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2117/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Nishi Padma, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 201Section 206CSection 234E

206C which is to be delivered or caused to be delivered for tax deducted at source or tax collected at source, as the case may be, on or after the 1st day of July, 2012.” 3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the assessee filed appeals before the CIT(A). The assessee’s contention before CIT(A) was that the provisions

MS. SEENA DEEPAK,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC -TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2119/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Nishi Padma, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 201Section 206CSection 234E

206C which is to be delivered or caused to be delivered for tax deducted at source or tax collected at source, as the case may be, on or after the 1st day of July, 2012.” 3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the assessee filed appeals before the CIT(A). The assessee’s contention before CIT(A) was that the provisions

MS. SEENA DEEPAK,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC -TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2122/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Nishi Padma, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 201Section 206CSection 234E

206C which is to be delivered or caused to be delivered for tax deducted at source or tax collected at source, as the case may be, on or after the 1st day of July, 2012.” 3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the assessee filed appeals before the CIT(A). The assessee’s contention before CIT(A) was that the provisions

MS. SEENA DEEPAK,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC -TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2120/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Nishi Padma, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 201Section 206CSection 234E

206C which is to be delivered or caused to be delivered for tax deducted at source or tax collected at source, as the case may be, on or after the 1st day of July, 2012.” 3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the assessee filed appeals before the CIT(A). The assessee’s contention before CIT(A) was that the provisions

MS. SEENA DEEPAK,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC -TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2129/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jan 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Nishi Padma, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 201Section 206CSection 234E

206C which is to be delivered or caused to be delivered for tax deducted at source or tax collected at source, as the case may be, on or after the 1st day of July, 2012.” 3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the assessee filed appeals before the CIT(A). The assessee’s contention before CIT(A) was that the provisions

MS. SEENA DEEPAK,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC -TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2131/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Nishi Padma, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 201Section 206CSection 234E

206C which is to be delivered or caused to be delivered for tax deducted at source or tax collected at source, as the case may be, on or after the 1st day of July, 2012.” 3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the assessee filed appeals before the CIT(A). The assessee’s contention before CIT(A) was that the provisions