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.

10 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 272A(1)(d)clear

Sorted by relevance

Surat50Chennai41Ahmedabad34Visakhapatnam30Mumbai26Pune24Lucknow20Indore17Cuttack16Kolkata15Hyderabad13Cochin11Bangalore10Delhi10Panaji10Patna9Rajkot8Jaipur7Amritsar6Chandigarh6Agra3Jabalpur3Raipur3SC2Jodhpur1Ranchi1Allahabad1Guwahati1Varanasi1Nagpur1

Key Topics

Section 234E40Section 200A14Section 272A(1)(d)10Penalty10Section 1548Exemption6TDS6Section 1445Section 200A(1)4Charitable Trust

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

d) of an item, which is inconsistent with another entry of the same or some other item in such statement; (ii) in respect of rate of deduction of tax at source, where such rate is not in accordance with the provisions of this Act. (2) For the purposes of processing of statements under sub- section (1), the Board may make

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

4
Rectification u/s 1544
Section 69A3

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

d) of an item, which is inconsistent with another entry of the same or some other item in such statement; (ii) in respect of rate of deduction of tax at source, where such rate is not in accordance with the provisions of this Act. (2) For the purposes of processing of statements under sub- section (1), the Board may make

KAPIL BHATEJA,MEERUT vs. ITO, WARD-1(1)(3), MEERUT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2628/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2017-18 Kapil Bhateja, Vs Ito, H.N.184, Jybli Ganj, Ward 1(1)(3), Rajban Bara Bazar, Meerut. Meerut, Uttar Pradesh – 250001. Pan: Amjpb2717L

For Appellant: Ms Sunaina Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 270ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 44A

delay condonation applications in the case of quantum as well as for two penalties imposed upon the assessee. It was pointed out that the assessee was completely unaware of the quantum assessment order framed u/s 144 of the Act ; penalty order passed u/s 270A of the Act for misreporting of income and penalty order passed u/s 272A(1)(d

DESH RAM,MUMTAJPUR vs. A.O, FACELESS ASSESSMENT

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2980/DEL/2024[17-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2017-18 Sh. Desh Ram, Vs. Assessment Officer, Mumtajpur, Ward No. 05, Faceless Assessment, Baspadamka B.O., Gurgaon Mumtajpur (38), Gurgaon Pan: Ajipr3006Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Vinay Aggarwal, Ar Department By Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17.04.2025 Order

Section 142(1)Section 272A(1)(d)

section 272A(1)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 3. It emerges during the course of hearing at the outset that the CIT(A)/NFAC herein has refused to condone 439 days’ delay

IYCWORLD SOFTINFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CELL - TDS

In the result, in ITA No. 906, 907 & 908/Del/2024 are allowed and ITA No

ITA 908/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Mahander Singh Dagar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Parul Singh, Sr. DR
Section 154Section 200ASection 234E

272A(2), it can be said 9 ITA No.3681/Del./2017 that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under Section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A payable under Section 234E. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, we are unable to accept

IYCWORLD SOFTINFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CELL - TDS

In the result, in ITA No. 906, 907 & 908/Del/2024 are allowed and ITA No

ITA 907/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Mahander Singh Dagar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Parul Singh, Sr. DR
Section 154Section 200ASection 234E

272A(2), it can be said 9 ITA No.3681/Del./2017 that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under Section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A payable under Section 234E. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, we are unable to accept

IYCWORLD SOFTINFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CELL - TDS

In the result, in ITA No. 906, 907 & 908/Del/2024 are allowed and ITA No

ITA 909/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Mahander Singh Dagar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Parul Singh, Sr. DR
Section 154Section 200ASection 234E

272A(2), it can be said 9 ITA No.3681/Del./2017 that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under Section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A payable under Section 234E. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, we are unable to accept

IYCWORLD SOFTINFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CELL - TDS

In the result, in ITA No. 906, 907 & 908/Del/2024 are allowed and ITA No

ITA 906/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Mahander Singh Dagar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Parul Singh, Sr. DR
Section 154Section 200ASection 234E

272A(2), it can be said 9 ITA No.3681/Del./2017 that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under Section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A payable under Section 234E. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, we are unable to accept

TALHA KHAN,MOHALLA AFGANAN PO AMROHA vs. ADDL.JT.DY.ACIT.NFAC, NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC) DELHI

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3419/DEL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumara.Yr. : 2017-18 Talha Khan, Vs. National Faceless Mohalla Afganan Po Amroha, Appeal Centre (Nfac), Amroha-244221 Delhi Uttar Pradesh (Pan: Ejspk7379K) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Vibhu Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 148Section 271FSection 69A

section 271F, 271A ; 271B, 271 AAC[1], 272A[1][d] and wrongly assessed income and the head from other sources in place of business income. 2. At the outset, it is noticed that there is a delay of 71 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The reasonable cause for the same has been attributed that assessee

RAJAN AHUJA,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 45(2), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2542/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Rajan Ahuja, Vs Ito, A-2/79, Ground Floor, Ward-45(2), Rajouri Garden, Delhi-110027. Delhi. Pan-Bxxpa0933M Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Akarsh Garg, Advocate Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 07.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13.12.2023

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 272Section 272A(1)(d)

D. BECAUSE the Ld. CIT (A) instead of dealing with the issues pertaining to assessment under section 144, reproduced the penalty order u/s 250 in case of penalty under section 272 and did not pass the appropriate order dealing with the issues put forth pursuant to the assessment order dated 25.12.2019 under section 144 of the Act. E. BECAUSE