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 206C(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Pune199Delhi149Bangalore117Chennai80Raipur39Mumbai25Karnataka22Kolkata18Nagpur16Ahmedabad16Lucknow14Cochin13Jodhpur12Panaji10Rajkot9Dehradun8Jaipur7Hyderabad6Chandigarh6Cuttack5Amritsar4Indore3Varanasi2

Key Topics

Section 234E535Section 200A215Section 154171Section 200A(1)105TDS96Rectification u/s 15474Section 200A(1)(c)73Section 200A(3)69Section 2

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

206C(3) of the Act, is inserted by F.A.2012 w.e.f. 01/07/2012 .Therefore, since both the substantive legislation (section imposing statutory liability as well as the charging section for levy of fees in case of violation of statutory liability) were in effect much earlier from the date of insertion of 200A(3) which is merely a mechanical provision providing for computation

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

Showing 1–20 of 149 · Page 1 of 8

...
22
Section 244A22
Deduction10
Limitation/Time-bar7

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

206C(3) of the Act, is inserted by F.A.2012 w.e.f. 01/07/2012 .Therefore, since both the substantive legislation (section imposing statutory liability as well as the charging section for levy of fees in case of violation of statutory liability) were in effect much earlier from the date of insertion of 200A(3) which is merely a mechanical provision providing for computation

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

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 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 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

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2553/DEL/2013[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020AY 1999-00

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 2553/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 1999-00 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, (Appeals)-Ix, Income Tax Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 Office, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q Ita No. 2641/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 1999-00 Dcit, Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Circle-6(1), Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q Ita No. 468/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 1994-95 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Jcit(Osd), Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-6(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Pramita M. Biswas, CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 244ASection 244A(1)Section 244A(1)(a)Section 244A(3)Section 254

3, 2009 further clarified as to what the judgment meant. “Delay condoned in S.L.P.(C) No...CC 10437/2009. Leave granted. In income tax matters, it is well settled that if the question is not properly framed, then, at times, confusion arises resulting in wrong answers. The present batch of Civil Appeals is an illustration of the proposition mentioned herein-above

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 599/DEL/2014[1994-95]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020AY 1994-95

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 2553/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 1999-00 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, (Appeals)-Ix, Income Tax Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 Office, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q Ita No. 2641/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 1999-00 Dcit, Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Circle-6(1), Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q Ita No. 468/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 1994-95 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Jcit(Osd), Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-6(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Pramita M. Biswas, CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 244ASection 244A(1)Section 244A(1)(a)Section 244A(3)Section 254

3, 2009 further clarified as to what the judgment meant. “Delay condoned in S.L.P.(C) No...CC 10437/2009. Leave granted. In income tax matters, it is well settled that if the question is not properly framed, then, at times, confusion arises resulting in wrong answers. The present batch of Civil Appeals is an illustration of the proposition mentioned herein-above

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2641/DEL/2013[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020AY 1999-00

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 2553/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 1999-00 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, (Appeals)-Ix, Income Tax Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 Office, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q Ita No. 2641/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 1999-00 Dcit, Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Circle-6(1), Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q Ita No. 468/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 1994-95 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Jcit(Osd), Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-6(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Pramita M. Biswas, CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 244ASection 244A(1)Section 244A(1)(a)Section 244A(3)Section 254

3, 2009 further clarified as to what the judgment meant. “Delay condoned in S.L.P.(C) No...CC 10437/2009. Leave granted. In income tax matters, it is well settled that if the question is not properly framed, then, at times, confusion arises resulting in wrong answers. The present batch of Civil Appeals is an illustration of the proposition mentioned herein-above

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT (OSD), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 468/DEL/2014[1994-95]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020AY 1994-95

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 2553/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 1999-00 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, (Appeals)-Ix, Income Tax Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 Office, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q Ita No. 2641/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 1999-00 Dcit, Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Circle-6(1), Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q Ita No. 468/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 1994-95 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Jcit(Osd), Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-6(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Pramita M. Biswas, CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 244ASection 244A(1)Section 244A(1)(a)Section 244A(3)Section 254

3, 2009 further clarified as to what the judgment meant. “Delay condoned in S.L.P.(C) No...CC 10437/2009. Leave granted. In income tax matters, it is well settled that if the question is not properly framed, then, at times, confusion arises resulting in wrong answers. The present batch of Civil Appeals is an illustration of the proposition mentioned herein-above

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 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

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

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 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

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 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 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

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 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 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