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.

46 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 272Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Pune222Delhi163Chennai86Surat50Mumbai50Bangalore46Visakhapatnam38Ahmedabad35Lucknow25Karnataka21Nagpur20Kolkata19Hyderabad18Indore18Cuttack16Cochin12Panaji10Rajkot10Patna9Jaipur8Chandigarh7Amritsar7Agra4Jabalpur3Raipur3SC2Varanasi1Jodhpur1Allahabad1Ranchi1Guwahati1

Key Topics

Section 234E190Section 200A157TDS38Section 271H32Condonation of Delay17Section 10(5)15Penalty15Section 25013Addition to Income

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

SAMRAT GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Showing 1–20 of 46 · Page 1 of 3

12
Section 23411
Section 272A(2)(e)9
Exemption9
ITA 528/BANG/2021[2015-16 (26Q-Q4)]Status: Disposed
ITAT Bangalore
30 Dec 2021

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Siddesh Nagaraj GaddiFor Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT-DR
Section 200ASection 234Section 234ESection 250

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. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, the contention of the respondent-revenue that insertion of clauses

SAMRAT GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 521/BANG/2021[2013-14 (26Q-Q3)]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2021

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Siddesh Nagaraj GaddiFor Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT-DR
Section 200ASection 234Section 234ESection 250

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. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, the contention of the respondent-revenue that insertion of clauses

SAMRAT GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 522/BANG/2021[2013-14 (26Q-Q4)]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2021

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Siddesh Nagaraj GaddiFor Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT-DR
Section 200ASection 234Section 234ESection 250

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. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, the contention of the respondent-revenue that insertion of clauses

SAMRAT GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER POF INCOME TAX, CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 520/BANG/2021[2013-14 (26Q-Q2)]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2021

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Siddesh Nagaraj GaddiFor Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT-DR
Section 200ASection 234Section 234ESection 250

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. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, the contention of the respondent-revenue that insertion of clauses

SAMRAT GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 519/BANG/2021[2013-14 (24Q-Q2)]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2021

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Siddesh Nagaraj GaddiFor Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT-DR
Section 200ASection 234Section 234ESection 250

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. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, the contention of the respondent-revenue that insertion of clauses

SAMRAT GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 527/BANG/2021[2014-15 (26Q-Q2)]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2021

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Siddesh Nagaraj GaddiFor Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT-DR
Section 200ASection 234Section 234ESection 250

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. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, the contention of the respondent-revenue that insertion of clauses

SAMRAT GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 526/BANG/2021[2014-15 (26Q-Q1)]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2021

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Siddesh Nagaraj GaddiFor Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT-DR
Section 200ASection 234Section 234ESection 250

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. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, the contention of the respondent-revenue that insertion of clauses

SAMRAT GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 525/BANG/2021[2014-15 (24Q-Q3)]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2021

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Siddesh Nagaraj GaddiFor Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT-DR
Section 200ASection 234Section 234ESection 250

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. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, the contention of the respondent-revenue that insertion of clauses

SAMRAT GRANITES PRIVATE LIMTED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 524/BANG/2021[2014-15 (24Q-Q2)]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2021

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Siddesh Nagaraj GaddiFor Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT-DR
Section 200ASection 234Section 234ESection 250

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. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, the contention of the respondent-revenue that insertion of clauses

SAMRAT GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 523/BANG/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Siddesh Nagaraj GaddiFor Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT-DR
Section 200ASection 234Section 234ESection 250

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. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, the contention of the respondent-revenue that insertion of clauses

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

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. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned

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 2823/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

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. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned

ELITE INDIA CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS-9), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 5/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT
Section 200ASection 234E

condone the delay (for only 8 quarters out of 21 quarters). Therefore, we hold that the CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal pertaining to 8 quarters on the ground of delay in filing the appeal before him. 7.3 The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sri Fateharaj Singhvi v. Union of India & Ors. (supra

ELITE INDIA CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS-9), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4/BANG/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT
Section 200ASection 234E

condone the delay (for only 8 quarters out of 21 quarters). Therefore, we hold that the CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal pertaining to 8 quarters on the ground of delay in filing the appeal before him. 7.3 The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sri Fateharaj Singhvi v. Union of India & Ors. (supra

M/S. ELITE INDIA CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS-9), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2621/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT
Section 200ASection 234E

condone the delay (for only 8 quarters out of 21 quarters). Therefore, we hold that the CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal pertaining to 8 quarters on the ground of delay in filing the appeal before him. 7.3 The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sri Fateharaj Singhvi v. Union of India & Ors. (supra

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

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. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned

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

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. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned

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

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. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned

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

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. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned