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.

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

Sorted by relevance

Raipur39Chennai38Pune19Delhi16Cochin13Kolkata12Panaji10Rajkot9Bangalore8Dehradun8Jodhpur5Jaipur4Mumbai4Indore3Amritsar3Hyderabad3Lucknow1Ahmedabad1Cuttack1

Key Topics

Section 234E72Section 206C32TDS14Section 200A8Deduction8Section 200(3)6Penalty5Section 143(3)4Section 200A(1)4

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

Addition to Income4
Condonation of Delay4
Section 2063

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

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

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

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 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

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

DREAM DESIGN AND DISPLAY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NOIDA vs. DCIT CIRCLE 7(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the captioned appeals are allowed

ITA 637/DEL/2024[2013-14 (24Q, Q3)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2024

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Written SubmissionsFor Respondent: Shri Narpat Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 234E

206C(3) as the case may be. The CPC while processing the TDS statement issued intimation / order to the assessee under Section 200A of the Act and levied late fees of different amounts computed with reference to section 234E of the Act. 5.3 The assessee challenged the action of the Assessing Officer before the CIT(A) and contended that

DREAM DESIGN AND DISPLAY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NOIDA vs. DCIT CIRCLE 7(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the captioned appeals are allowed

ITA 639/DEL/2024[2013-12 (24Q, Q2)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2024

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Written SubmissionsFor Respondent: Shri Narpat Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 234E

206C(3) as the case may be. The CPC while processing the TDS statement issued intimation / order to the assessee under Section 200A of the Act and levied late fees of different amounts computed with reference to section 234E of the Act. 5.3 The assessee challenged the action of the Assessing Officer before the CIT(A) and contended that

DREAM DESIGN AND DISPLAY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NOIDA vs. DCIT CRICLE 7(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the captioned appeals are allowed

ITA 638/DEL/2024[2013-14(24Q, Q2)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2024

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Written SubmissionsFor Respondent: Shri Narpat Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 234E

206C(3) as the case may be. The CPC while processing the TDS statement issued intimation / order to the assessee under Section 200A of the Act and levied late fees of different amounts computed with reference to section 234E of the Act. 5.3 The assessee challenged the action of the Assessing Officer before the CIT(A) and contended that

DREAM DESIGH AND DISPLAY INDIA PVT. LTD.,,GREATER NOIDA vs. DCIT/TDS/CPC, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the captioned appeals are allowed

ITA 634/DEL/2024[A.Y-2013-14 (Quarter-4 TDS Statement in Form 26Q)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2024

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Written SubmissionsFor Respondent: Shri Narpat Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 234E

206C(3) as the case may be. The CPC while processing the TDS statement issued intimation / order to the assessee under Section 200A of the Act and levied late fees of different amounts computed with reference to section 234E of the Act. 5.3 The assessee challenged the action of the Assessing Officer before the CIT(A) and contended that

DREAN DESIGN AND DISPLAY INDIA PVT. LTD.,GREATER NOIDA vs. DCIT/TDS/CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the captioned appeals are allowed

ITA 635/DEL/2024[2013-14 (26Q, Q3)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2024

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Written SubmissionsFor Respondent: Shri Narpat Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 234E

206C(3) as the case may be. The CPC while processing the TDS statement issued intimation / order to the assessee under Section 200A of the Act and levied late fees of different amounts computed with reference to section 234E of the Act. 5.3 The assessee challenged the action of the Assessing Officer before the CIT(A) and contended that

DREAM DESIGN AND DISPLAY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,UTTAR PRADESH vs. DCIT CIRCLE 7(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the captioned appeals are allowed

ITA 636/DEL/2024[2013-14 (24Q, Q4)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2024

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Written SubmissionsFor Respondent: Shri Narpat Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 234E

206C(3) as the case may be. The CPC while processing the TDS statement issued intimation / order to the assessee under Section 200A of the Act and levied late fees of different amounts computed with reference to section 234E of the Act. 5.3 The assessee challenged the action of the Assessing Officer before the CIT(A) and contended that

DCIT CIRCLE 4(2), NEW DELHI vs. CANON INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, to sum up and conclude:

ITA 1038/DEL/2023[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B. Basanta, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 254Section 92C

7. We are in respectful agreement with the view taken by the Karnataka High Court in Wipro Ltd. case. The other two judgments referred to hereinabove, only follow the decision in the Wipro Ltd. case. 8. Therefore, according to us, no substantial question of law arises, insofar as proposed questions 'C', 'D', and 'E' are concerned. 9. We are, however

CANON INDIA PVT. LTD,GURUGRAM vs. NEAC, DELHI

In the result, to sum up and conclude:

ITA 585/DEL/2021[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B. Basanta, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 254Section 92C

7. We are in respectful agreement with the view taken by the Karnataka High Court in Wipro Ltd. case. The other two judgments referred to hereinabove, only follow the decision in the Wipro Ltd. case. 8. Therefore, according to us, no substantial question of law arises, insofar as proposed questions 'C', 'D', and 'E' are concerned. 9. We are, however