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(2)(e)clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai41Visakhapatnam29Surat25Ahmedabad24Pune23Mumbai22Lucknow20Indore18Cuttack16Cochin11Kolkata11Hyderabad10Delhi10Bangalore10Rajkot9Jaipur7Amritsar7Chandigarh6Patna4Agra3Jabalpur3Raipur3SC2Allahabad1Nagpur1Guwahati1Ranchi1Jodhpur1

Key Topics

Section 234E40Section 200A14Penalty10Section 1548TDS7Exemption6Section 200A(1)4Section 272A(1)(d)4Section 272A(2)(k)4

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

2) The penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall be a sum which shall not be less than ten thousand rupees but which may extend to one lakh rupees. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this section, no penalty shall be levied for the failure referred to in clause (a) of sub-section

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

Charitable Trust4
Rectification u/s 1544
Condonation of Delay4

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

2) The penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall be a sum which shall not be less than ten thousand rupees but which may extend to one lakh rupees. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this section, no penalty shall be levied for the failure referred to in clause (a) of sub-section

UCO BANK, PATIALA HOUSE BRANCH,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, RANGE- 78, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 7646/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 200(3)Section 201(1)Section 272A(2)(k)Section 273B

section 272A(2)(k) of the Act alleging that the assessee failed to file any reply with supporting evidences to establish that there was reasonable cause for late filing of the TDS statements. The Assessing Officer proceeded to impose penalty of Rs.12,27,000/- for different quarters falling in financial year 2008-09. Against the penalty order so passed, assessee

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

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)

272A(1)(d) of the Act. The Revenue vehemently argues that not only the assessee had failed to respond to the Assessing Officer’s notice dated 08.02.2022 during scrutiny but also, he could not tender any justifiable explanation in support of the averments in the lower appellate proceedings. We find no merit in the Revenue’s instant twin arguments

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)

2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- A. “BECAUSE the order dated 28.02.2023 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous, bad in law and is liable to be set aside. B. BECAUSE the Ld. CIT(A) passed the order dated 28.02.2023 without dealing with the submissions made by the Appellant. C. BECAUSE the Ld. CIT(A) passed