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.

229 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 115(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi229Chennai217Mumbai151Karnataka123Pune92Kolkata68Bangalore65Surat62Jaipur48Hyderabad46Visakhapatnam45Ahmedabad42Calcutta38Chandigarh33Amritsar32Indore19Panaji16Lucknow16Varanasi14Guwahati12Cuttack12Jabalpur12Cochin9Rajkot8SC7Nagpur6Raipur6Patna5Allahabad5Jodhpur4Telangana3Agra2Rajasthan1Orissa1Himachal Pradesh1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 234E357Section 200A137Section 154109Section 200A(1)71Section 6865TDS58Section 80I51Rectification u/s 15448Section 200A(1)(c)

W SERVE TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1027/DEL/2020[2015-16 24Q, (Q-1)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2022

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. M. Baranwal, Sr. DR
Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234E

condonation of delay, however, the ld. CIT(A) has judiciously adjudicated the issue on merits and held that since the AO has levied late fee u/s 234E only after 01.06.2015 vide intimation dated 03.04.2018, the claim of the assessee for the exemption from levy of late fee was liable to be dismissed. 3. Aggrieved the assessee filed appeal before

W SERVE TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

Showing 1–20 of 229 · Page 1 of 12

...
47
Section 200A(3)45
Addition to Income32
Disallowance20

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1040/DEL/2020[2013-14 (26Q-Q-2)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2022

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. M. Baranwal, Sr. DR
Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234E

condonation of delay, however, the ld. CIT(A) has judiciously adjudicated the issue on merits and held that since the AO has levied late fee u/s 234E only after 01.06.2015 vide intimation dated 03.04.2018, the claim of the assessee for the exemption from levy of late fee was liable to be dismissed. 3. Aggrieved the assessee filed appeal before

M/S. BHARAT ALUMINIUM COMPANY LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2741/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Kanchan Kaushal, FCAFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 80I

115-O or on distributed income under section 115R; (ii) any interest charged under this Act; (iii) surcharge, if any, as levied by the Central Acts from time to time; (iv) Education Cess on income-tax, if any, as levied by the Central Acts from time to time; and (v ) Secondary and Higher Education Cess on income

M/S. BHARAT ALUMINIUM COMPANY LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 5118/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Kanchan Kaushal, FCAFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 80I

115-O or on distributed income under section 115R; (ii) any interest charged under this Act; (iii) surcharge, if any, as levied by the Central Acts from time to time; (iv) Education Cess on income-tax, if any, as levied by the Central Acts from time to time; and (v ) Secondary and Higher Education Cess on income

M/S. BHARAT ALUMINIUM COMPANY LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3568/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Kanchan Kaushal, FCAFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 80I

115-O or on distributed income under section 115R; (ii) any interest charged under this Act; (iii) surcharge, if any, as levied by the Central Acts from time to time; (iv) Education Cess on income-tax, if any, as levied by the Central Acts from time to time; and (v ) Secondary and Higher Education Cess on income

SREI INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE LTD

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/371/2012HC Delhi13 Feb 2015
Section 260ASection 32

115-O or on distributed income under section 115R; (ii ) any interest charged under this Act; (iii ) surcharge, if any, as levied by the Central Acts from time to time; (iv ) Education Cess on income-tax, if any, as levied by the Central Acts from time to time; and (v ) Secondary and Higher Education Cess on income

SREI INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE LIMITED vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is dismissed

ITA - 371 / 2012HC Delhi13 Feb 2015
Section 260ASection 32

115-O or on distributed income under section 115R; (ii ) any interest charged under this Act; (iii ) surcharge, if any, as levied by the Central Acts from time to time; (iv ) Education Cess on income-tax, if any, as levied by the Central Acts from time to time; and (v ) Secondary and Higher Education Cess on income

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS,GURGAON vs. ITO, WARD (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, all appeals of different assesses are allowed

ITA 6758/DEL/2019[27Q/Quarter-3/2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Am [Through Video Conferencing]

For Appellant: Sh. M.R. Sahu, CAFor Respondent: Sh. M.Barnwal, Sr.DR
Section 154Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 200A(1)(c)Section 200A(3)Section 234E

115 taxmann.com 345 (Madras) 9. He then referred to the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Fateh Raj Singhvi & Ors. vs UOI [2016] 289 CTR 602(Kar.) in para 10.14 onwards and concluded para 10.15, which reads as under:- Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2015-16 “10.15 On perusal of the decisions of various High courts

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS,GURGAON vs. ITO, WARD (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, all appeals of different assesses are allowed

ITA 6750/DEL/2019[2013-14,27Q, Qtr-2]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Am [Through Video Conferencing]

For Appellant: Sh. M.R. Sahu, CAFor Respondent: Sh. M.Barnwal, Sr.DR
Section 154Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 200A(1)(c)Section 200A(3)Section 234E

115 taxmann.com 345 (Madras) 9. He then referred to the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Fateh Raj Singhvi & Ors. vs UOI [2016] 289 CTR 602(Kar.) in para 10.14 onwards and concluded para 10.15, which reads as under:- Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2015-16 “10.15 On perusal of the decisions of various High courts

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS,GURGAON vs. ITO, WARD (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, all appeals of different assesses are allowed

ITA 6747/DEL/2019[26Q/Quarter-2/2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Am [Through Video Conferencing]

For Appellant: Sh. M.R. Sahu, CAFor Respondent: Sh. M.Barnwal, Sr.DR
Section 154Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 200A(1)(c)Section 200A(3)Section 234E

115 taxmann.com 345 (Madras) 9. He then referred to the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Fateh Raj Singhvi & Ors. vs UOI [2016] 289 CTR 602(Kar.) in para 10.14 onwards and concluded para 10.15, which reads as under:- Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2015-16 “10.15 On perusal of the decisions of various High courts

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS,GURGAON vs. ITO, WARD (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, all appeals of different assesses are allowed

ITA 6752/DEL/2019[2014-15,24Q.Qtr-4]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Am [Through Video Conferencing]

For Appellant: Sh. M.R. Sahu, CAFor Respondent: Sh. M.Barnwal, Sr.DR
Section 154Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 200A(1)(c)Section 200A(3)Section 234E

115 taxmann.com 345 (Madras) 9. He then referred to the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Fateh Raj Singhvi & Ors. vs UOI [2016] 289 CTR 602(Kar.) in para 10.14 onwards and concluded para 10.15, which reads as under:- Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2015-16 “10.15 On perusal of the decisions of various High courts

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS,GURGAON vs. ITO, WARD (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, all appeals of different assesses are allowed

ITA 6749/DEL/2019[2013-14, 26Q, Qtr-4]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Am [Through Video Conferencing]

For Appellant: Sh. M.R. Sahu, CAFor Respondent: Sh. M.Barnwal, Sr.DR
Section 154Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 200A(1)(c)Section 200A(3)Section 234E

115 taxmann.com 345 (Madras) 9. He then referred to the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Fateh Raj Singhvi & Ors. vs UOI [2016] 289 CTR 602(Kar.) in para 10.14 onwards and concluded para 10.15, which reads as under:- Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2015-16 “10.15 On perusal of the decisions of various High courts

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS,GURGAON vs. ITO, WARD (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, all appeals of different assesses are allowed

ITA 6754/DEL/2019[2014-15,26Q, Qtr-2]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Am [Through Video Conferencing]

For Appellant: Sh. M.R. Sahu, CAFor Respondent: Sh. M.Barnwal, Sr.DR
Section 154Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 200A(1)(c)Section 200A(3)Section 234E

115 taxmann.com 345 (Madras) 9. He then referred to the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Fateh Raj Singhvi & Ors. vs UOI [2016] 289 CTR 602(Kar.) in para 10.14 onwards and concluded para 10.15, which reads as under:- Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2015-16 “10.15 On perusal of the decisions of various High courts

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS,GURGAON vs. ITO, WARD (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, all appeals of different assesses are allowed

ITA 6755/DEL/2019[26Q/Quarter-3/2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Am [Through Video Conferencing]

For Appellant: Sh. M.R. Sahu, CAFor Respondent: Sh. M.Barnwal, Sr.DR
Section 154Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 200A(1)(c)Section 200A(3)Section 234E

115 taxmann.com 345 (Madras) 9. He then referred to the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Fateh Raj Singhvi & Ors. vs UOI [2016] 289 CTR 602(Kar.) in para 10.14 onwards and concluded para 10.15, which reads as under:- Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2015-16 “10.15 On perusal of the decisions of various High courts

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS,GURGAON vs. ITO, WARD (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, all appeals of different assesses are allowed

ITA 6757/DEL/2019[27Q/Quarter-2/2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Am [Through Video Conferencing]

For Appellant: Sh. M.R. Sahu, CAFor Respondent: Sh. M.Barnwal, Sr.DR
Section 154Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 200A(1)(c)Section 200A(3)Section 234E

115 taxmann.com 345 (Madras) 9. He then referred to the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Fateh Raj Singhvi & Ors. vs UOI [2016] 289 CTR 602(Kar.) in para 10.14 onwards and concluded para 10.15, which reads as under:- Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2015-16 “10.15 On perusal of the decisions of various High courts

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS,GURGAON vs. ITO, WARD (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, all appeals of different assesses are allowed

ITA 6756/DEL/2019[26Q/Quarter-4/2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Am [Through Video Conferencing]

For Appellant: Sh. M.R. Sahu, CAFor Respondent: Sh. M.Barnwal, Sr.DR
Section 154Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 200A(1)(c)Section 200A(3)Section 234E

115 taxmann.com 345 (Madras) 9. He then referred to the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Fateh Raj Singhvi & Ors. vs UOI [2016] 289 CTR 602(Kar.) in para 10.14 onwards and concluded para 10.15, which reads as under:- Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2015-16 “10.15 On perusal of the decisions of various High courts

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS,GURGAON vs. ITO, WARD (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, all appeals of different assesses are allowed

ITA 6748/DEL/2019[2013-14, 26Q, Qtr-3]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Am [Through Video Conferencing]

For Appellant: Sh. M.R. Sahu, CAFor Respondent: Sh. M.Barnwal, Sr.DR
Section 154Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 200A(1)(c)Section 200A(3)Section 234E

115 taxmann.com 345 (Madras) 9. He then referred to the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Fateh Raj Singhvi & Ors. vs UOI [2016] 289 CTR 602(Kar.) in para 10.14 onwards and concluded para 10.15, which reads as under:- Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2015-16 “10.15 On perusal of the decisions of various High courts

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS,GURGAON vs. ITO, WARD (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, all appeals of different assesses are allowed

ITA 6760/DEL/2019[26Q/Quarter-2/2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Am [Through Video Conferencing]

For Appellant: Sh. M.R. Sahu, CAFor Respondent: Sh. M.Barnwal, Sr.DR
Section 154Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 200A(1)(c)Section 200A(3)Section 234E

115 taxmann.com 345 (Madras) 9. He then referred to the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Fateh Raj Singhvi & Ors. vs UOI [2016] 289 CTR 602(Kar.) in para 10.14 onwards and concluded para 10.15, which reads as under:- Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2015-16 “10.15 On perusal of the decisions of various High courts

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS,GURGAON vs. ITO, WARD (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, all appeals of different assesses are allowed

ITA 6759/DEL/2019[26Q/Quarter-1/2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Am [Through Video Conferencing]

For Appellant: Sh. M.R. Sahu, CAFor Respondent: Sh. M.Barnwal, Sr.DR
Section 154Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 200A(1)(c)Section 200A(3)Section 234E

115 taxmann.com 345 (Madras) 9. He then referred to the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Fateh Raj Singhvi & Ors. vs UOI [2016] 289 CTR 602(Kar.) in para 10.14 onwards and concluded para 10.15, which reads as under:- Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2015-16 “10.15 On perusal of the decisions of various High courts

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS,GURGAON vs. ITO, WARD (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, all appeals of different assesses are allowed

ITA 6753/DEL/2019[2014-15, 26Q,Qtr-1]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Am [Through Video Conferencing]

For Appellant: Sh. M.R. Sahu, CAFor Respondent: Sh. M.Barnwal, Sr.DR
Section 154Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 200A(1)(c)Section 200A(3)Section 234E

115 taxmann.com 345 (Madras) 9. He then referred to the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Fateh Raj Singhvi & Ors. vs UOI [2016] 289 CTR 602(Kar.) in para 10.14 onwards and concluded para 10.15, which reads as under:- Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2015-16 “10.15 On perusal of the decisions of various High courts