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.

148 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 206C(7)clear

Sorted by relevance

Pune160Delhi148Bangalore117Chennai80Raipur39Mumbai25Karnataka22Kolkata18Nagpur16Ahmedabad16Lucknow14Cochin13Jodhpur12Panaji10Rajkot9Dehradun8Jaipur7Hyderabad6Cuttack6Chandigarh6Amritsar4Indore3Varanasi2

Key Topics

Section 234E539Section 200A218Section 154171Section 200A(1)106TDS97Section 200A(1)(c)74Rectification u/s 15474Section 200A(3)70Section 2

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

7 of the written submission) it is absolutely clear that this is merely an enabling section to compute/process the TDS statement. Section 234 E is the charging section requiring automatic payment of fee by the ITA Nos. 1027 to 1038 & 1040/Del/2020 18 W Serve Technologies Pvt. Ltd. defaulting deductors as per its sub-section (3) as even in the absence

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

Showing 1–20 of 148 · Page 1 of 8

...
22
Section 206C20
Deduction10
Limitation/Time-bar7

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

7 of the written submission) it is absolutely clear that this is merely an enabling section to compute/process the TDS statement. Section 234 E is the charging section requiring automatic payment of fee by the ITA Nos. 1027 to 1038 & 1040/Del/2020 18 W Serve Technologies Pvt. Ltd. defaulting deductors as per its sub-section (3) as even in the absence

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

206C which is to be delivered or caused to be delivered for tax deducted at source or tax collected at source, as the case may be, on or after the 1st day of July, 2012.” 2.2. A conjoint reading for aforesaid sections, if analyzed, section 200A of the Act deals with processing of statement of tax deducted at source, whereas

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

206C which is to be delivered or caused to be delivered for tax deducted at source or tax collected at source, as the case may be, on or after the 1st day of July, 2012.” 2.2. A conjoint reading for aforesaid sections, if analyzed, section 200A of the Act deals with processing of statement of tax deducted at source, whereas

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

206C(7) of the Act were made by the AO. 3.1 Against the said additions, the Assessee preferred first appeal before the ld. Commissioner and in column No. 15 of Form No. 35 described thereason of condonation of delay of 12 days in filing the appeal. 3.2 The prayer for condonation of delay made by the Assessee was rejected

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

206C(7) of the Act were made by the AO. 3.1 Against the said additions, the Assessee preferred first appeal before the ld. Commissioner and in column No. 15 of Form No. 35 described thereason of condonation of delay of 12 days in filing the appeal. 3.2 The prayer for condonation of delay made by the Assessee was rejected

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

7, Rohini, Delhi (PAN:AAAAY5044M) (ASSESSEE) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by: Sh. Gautam Acharya, C.A. Revenue by: Sh. Saras Kumar, Sr. DR. ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM These 03 appeals filed by the assessee against the common order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 26.08.2018 for the assessment years 2013-14 to 2015-2016. Since the issue involved

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

7, Rohini, Delhi (PAN:AAAAY5044M) (ASSESSEE) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by: Sh. Gautam Acharya, C.A. Revenue by: Sh. Saras Kumar, Sr. DR. ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM These 03 appeals filed by the assessee against the common order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 26.08.2018 for the assessment years 2013-14 to 2015-2016. Since the issue involved

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

7, Rohini, Delhi (PAN:AAAAY5044M) (ASSESSEE) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by: Sh. Gautam Acharya, C.A. Revenue by: Sh. Saras Kumar, Sr. DR. ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM These 03 appeals filed by the assessee against the common order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 26.08.2018 for the assessment years 2013-14 to 2015-2016. Since the issue involved

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 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

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 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

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

7. Thus, we hold that no fee was leviable to the assessee u/s 234E in violation of section 200(3), because assessee had furnished the statement immediately after depositing all the tax without any delay. Accordingly, the demand on account of 234E is cancelled. 8. Similarly interest u/s 220(2) cannot be levied when fee u/s 234E itself

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

7. Thus, we hold that no fee was leviable to the assessee u/s 234E in violation of section 200(3), because assessee had furnished the statement immediately after depositing all the tax without any delay. Accordingly, the demand on account of 234E is cancelled. 8. Similarly interest u/s 220(2) cannot be levied when fee u/s 234E itself

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

7. Thus, we hold that no fee was leviable to the assessee u/s 234E in violation of section 200(3), because assessee had furnished the statement immediately after depositing all the tax without any delay. Accordingly, the demand on account of 234E is cancelled. 8. Similarly interest u/s 220(2) cannot be levied when fee u/s 234E itself

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

7. Thus, we hold that no fee was leviable to the assessee u/s 234E in violation of section 200(3), because assessee had furnished the statement immediately after depositing all the tax without any delay. Accordingly, the demand on account of 234E is cancelled. 8. Similarly interest u/s 220(2) cannot be levied when fee u/s 234E itself

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

7. Thus, we hold that no fee was leviable to the assessee u/s 234E in violation of section 200(3), because assessee had furnished the statement immediately after depositing all the tax without any delay. Accordingly, the demand on account of 234E is cancelled. 8. Similarly interest u/s 220(2) cannot be levied when fee u/s 234E itself

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

7. Thus, we hold that no fee was leviable to the assessee u/s 234E in violation of section 200(3), because assessee had furnished the statement immediately after depositing all the tax without any delay. Accordingly, the demand on account of 234E is cancelled. 8. Similarly interest u/s 220(2) cannot be levied when fee u/s 234E itself

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

7. Thus, we hold that no fee was leviable to the assessee u/s 234E in violation of section 200(3), because assessee had furnished the statement immediately after depositing all the tax without any delay. Accordingly, the demand on account of 234E is cancelled. 8. Similarly interest u/s 220(2) cannot be levied when fee u/s 234E itself