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.

5 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 234Eclear

Sorted by relevance

Patna466Pune431Chennai392Delhi224Bangalore212Cochin93Mumbai84Nagpur81Visakhapatnam59Hyderabad53Jaipur38Dehradun21Karnataka21Ahmedabad14Kolkata11Agra10Amritsar10Lucknow10Panaji10Jodhpur9Rajkot8Indore8Raipur6Surat5Chandigarh5Ranchi4Guwahati2Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 234E24Section 200A15TDS5Section 2342Section 1952Penalty2Condonation of Delay2Addition to Income2

SH. SAURABH KAUSHIK,PANCHKULA vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 312/CHANDI/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: The Disposal Of The Same.

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal., CA and Ms. Shruti Khandelwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 194ISection 195Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 234E

Section 234E of the Act. Therefore, in case, there is a default or delay in submitting the TDS statements, a late fee shall be levied as contemplated u/s 234E of the Act and the A.O. shall compute such fee while processing the statements of TDS u/s. 200A in accordance with the provisions of sec. 234E. Thus

BATRA EXPORTS,FAZILKA vs. DCIT, |TDS,, LUDHIANA

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 38/CHANDI/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri J.K. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 200ASection 234Section 234E

Section FY Quarter Due Date Date of filing i) Rs. 90400/- 234E 2013-14/Q2 15.10.2013 03.01.2015 ii) Rs. 37,886/- 234E 2013-14/Q4 31.05.2014 02.01.2015 3. That the assessee filed the first appeal before the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi which was dismissed on 03.12.2021. 4. That aggrieved with the decision of CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi the assessee

BATRA EXPORTS,FAZILKA vs. DCIT, |TDS,, LUDHIANA

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 35/CHANDI/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri J.K. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 200ASection 234Section 234E

Section FY Quarter Due Date Date of filing i) Rs. 90400/- 234E 2013-14/Q2 15.10.2013 03.01.2015 ii) Rs. 37,886/- 234E 2013-14/Q4 31.05.2014 02.01.2015 3. That the assessee filed the first appeal before the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi which was dismissed on 03.12.2021. 4. That aggrieved with the decision of CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi the assessee

NAVPREET SINGH BHASIN,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, TDS-2, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1002/CHANDI/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Bhasin, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr. D.R
Section 200Section 200ASection 200A(1)(c)Section 234E

condonation of delay and the appeal prior to amendments also did not make the imposition of late fees by Section 234E

M/S N.N. FOREX TRAVEL SERVICES PVT. LTD.,MOHALI vs. DCIT (CPC), TDS, , GHAZIABAD

ITA 1418/CHANDI/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 May 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Diva Singh & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: Shri Pariikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gulshan Raj, CIT DR
Section 200ASection 234ESection 250(6)

section 234E of the Act, amounting to Rs.12,683 and Rs.10,300 respectively. 3. The assessee filed appeal against the aforesaid intimations, challenging the levy of the fees u/s 234E of the Act, before the CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) found that both the appeals were barred by limitation having been delayed for filing by 195 & 493 days respectively. Ld.CIT