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.

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

Sorted by relevance

Pune157Delhi149Bangalore117Chennai80Raipur39Mumbai25Karnataka22Kolkata18Cochin13Panaji10Rajkot9Dehradun8Lucknow7Hyderabad6Chandigarh6Jodhpur5Jaipur4Amritsar4Ahmedabad3Cuttack3Indore3Nagpur2Varanasi2

Key Topics

Section 234E530Section 200A217Section 154169Section 200A(1)100TDS96Rectification u/s 15477Section 200A(1)(c)76Section 200A(3)72Section 244A

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

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

delay in filing of TDS statements. In this sense, insertion of Clause (c) to section 200A( 1), is only an addendum to the section to provide for the machinery provision to compute the fee payable u/s 234E at the time of processing of TDS statement and the same is enabling for processes in nature. This is very much evident

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Showing 1–20 of 149 · Page 1 of 8

...
22
Section 222
Deduction11
Limitation/Time-bar7
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

delay in filing of TDS statements. In this sense, insertion of Clause (c) to section 200A( 1), is only an addendum to the section to provide for the machinery provision to compute the fee payable u/s 234E at the time of processing of TDS statement and the same is enabling for processes in nature. This is very much evident

M/S. SAMIKARAN LEARNING PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4051/DEL/2016[2014-15 (F.Y. 2013-14)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Nov 2017

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Joginder Singh

Section 200Section 200ASection 201Section 234E

condoning the delay in filing the appeals was also filed as referred to by the learned Authorized Representative. Referring to the order passed by the CIT(A), the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that the order of Assessing Officer was not passed under section 234E of the Act but was passed under section 200A

M/S. SAMIKARAN LEARNING PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4050/DEL/2016[2015-16 (F.Y. 2014-15)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Nov 2017

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Joginder Singh

Section 200Section 200ASection 201Section 234E

condoning the delay in filing the appeals was also filed as referred to by the learned Authorized Representative. Referring to the order passed by the CIT(A), the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that the order of Assessing Officer was not passed under section 234E of the Act but was passed under section 200A

SURESH KUMAR,SIRSA vs. ITO TDS, HISAR

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 848/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri N.K. Choudhry

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M. Baranwal, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 206Section 206CSection 206C(7)Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250Section 5

section 249(2) of the Act, as there is no sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The concluding part of the impugned order is reproduced herein below for brevity and ready reference: 8. In the instant case, the appellant filed the appeal against the order U/s 206C

SURESH KUMAR,SIRSA vs. ITO TDS, HISAR

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 859/DEL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri N.K. Choudhry

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M. Baranwal, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 206Section 206CSection 206C(7)Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250Section 5

section 249(2) of the Act, as there is no sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The concluding part of the impugned order is reproduced herein below for brevity and ready reference: 8. In the instant case, the appellant filed the appeal against the order U/s 206C

YAMUNA KHADAR SHIKSHA SAMITI,DELHI vs. ITO, TDS, MUZAFFARNAGAR

In the result, all the Eleven appeals filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 6259/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Before Shri A.N. Misshra

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Acharya, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 200ASection 234E

condoning the delay in filing the appeals was also filed as referred to by the learned Authorized Representative. Referring to the order passed by the CIT(A), the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that the order of Assessing Officer was not passed under section 234E of the Act but was passed under section 200A

YAMUNA KHADAR SHIKSHA SAMITI,DELHI vs. ITO, TDS, MUZAFFARNAGAR

In the result, all the Eleven appeals filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 6257/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Before Shri A.N. Misshra

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Acharya, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 200ASection 234E

condoning the delay in filing the appeals was also filed as referred to by the learned Authorized Representative. Referring to the order passed by the CIT(A), the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that the order of Assessing Officer was not passed under section 234E of the Act but was passed under section 200A

YAMUNA KHADAR SHIKSHA SAMITI,DELHI vs. ITO, TDS, MUZAFFARNAGAR

In the result, all the Eleven appeals filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 6258/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Before Shri A.N. Misshra

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Acharya, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 200ASection 234E

condoning the delay in filing the appeals was also filed as referred to by the learned Authorized Representative. Referring to the order passed by the CIT(A), the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that the order of Assessing Officer was not passed under section 234E of the Act but was passed under section 200A

THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE COLLECTORATE,BIJNOR vs. ITO (TDS), MORADABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7985/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.7985/Del/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 बनाम The District Magistrate Collectorate, Ito (Tds), Vs. Bijnor, Uttar Pradesh. Moradabad. Pan No. Lkndo6243G अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 206Section 206C

Section 206C of the Income Tax Act and have misapplied the provisions of the Act. 4. BECAUSE, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has further erred in holding the TCS is applicable on “sand excavation” and brick kilns” since the same are outside of the preview of Mines and Minerals

MS MINING OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY,PANIPAT vs. ITO WARD (TDS), KARNAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2010-11 partly allowed

ITA 5736/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Somil Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 206C

206C(6A) and 206(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 08.03.207 by the Assessing Officer, ITO (TDS), Karnal (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’). 2. At the outset, the appeal for AY 2010-11 is delayed by 240 days; appeal for AY 2011-12 is delayed by 304 days and appeal

MS MINING OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY,PANIPAT vs. ITO WARD (TDS), KARNAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2010-11 partly allowed

ITA 5738/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Somil Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 206C

206C(6A) and 206(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 08.03.207 by the Assessing Officer, ITO (TDS), Karnal (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’). 2. At the outset, the appeal for AY 2010-11 is delayed by 240 days; appeal for AY 2011-12 is delayed by 304 days and appeal

MS MINING OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY,PANIPAT vs. ITO WARD (TDS), KARNAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2010-11 partly allowed

ITA 5737/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Somil Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 206C

206C(6A) and 206(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 08.03.207 by the Assessing Officer, ITO (TDS), Karnal (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’). 2. At the outset, the appeal for AY 2010-11 is delayed by 240 days; appeal for AY 2011-12 is delayed by 304 days and appeal

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

condone the delay in late filing the income tax returns or that no appeal is provided from arbitrary order passed under section 234E of the Act. The Hon’ble High Court held that the right to appeal was not a matter of right but was creature of statute and if the Legislature deems fit not to provide remedy of appeal

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

condone the delay in late filing the income tax returns or that no appeal is provided from arbitrary order passed under section 234E of the Act. The Hon’ble High Court held that the right to appeal was not a matter of right but was creature of statute and if the Legislature deems fit not to provide remedy of appeal

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

condone the delay in late filing the income tax returns or that no appeal is provided from arbitrary order passed under section 234E of the Act. The Hon’ble High Court held that the right to appeal was not a matter of right but was creature of statute and if the Legislature deems fit not to provide remedy of appeal

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

condone the delay in late filing the income tax returns or that no appeal is provided from arbitrary order passed under section 234E of the Act. The Hon’ble High Court held that the right to appeal was not a matter of right but was creature of statute and if the Legislature deems fit not to provide remedy of appeal

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

condone the delay in late filing the income tax returns or that no appeal is provided from arbitrary order passed under section 234E of the Act. The Hon’ble High Court held that the right to appeal was not a matter of right but was creature of statute and if the Legislature deems fit not to provide remedy of appeal

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

condone the delay in late filing the income tax returns or that no appeal is provided from arbitrary order passed under section 234E of the Act. The Hon’ble High Court held that the right to appeal was not a matter of right but was creature of statute and if the Legislature deems fit not to provide remedy of appeal

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

condone the delay in late filing the income tax returns or that no appeal is provided from arbitrary order passed under section 234E of the Act. The Hon’ble High Court held that the right to appeal was not a matter of right but was creature of statute and if the Legislature deems fit not to provide remedy of appeal