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.

5 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 194Hclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai23Delhi16Jaipur9Bangalore9Chennai7Hyderabad5Kolkata5Ahmedabad3Allahabad3Patna2Nagpur2Visakhapatnam1Chandigarh1Lucknow1Rajkot1SC1Surat1Telangana1Agra1

Key Topics

Section 14A14Section 201(1)6Section 404Section 2014Section 194H3Section 194J3Disallowance3Addition to Income3Section 40a2

DEMI REALTORS,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes on the above terms

ITA 156/HYD/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Respondent: Ms. T. Vijaya Lakhsmi, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 40a

condoning the delay. and the remaining ground nos.4 to 16 for discussion can be summarized as follows: 1) Ground 4: Disallowance of Rs.24,94,00,000 under section 40A(3) of the Act. 2) Grounds 5 to 7: Disallowance of Rs.21,08,45,001 under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 3) Grounds 8 and 9: Payments made

Section 40A(3)2
TDS2
Condonation of Delay2

DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, HYDERABAD vs. M/S ANJANI PORTLAND CEMENT LTD.,, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 1305/HYD/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Ms. Geetindar Mann
Section 14ASection 32(1)(ii)

condone the said delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 16. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 12 ITA Nos. 1305 & 1493/Hyd/14 & CO No. 13/H/16 “1. The learned CIT(A)-3, Hyderabad (CIT(A) erred in not allowing the non compete fee of Rs.4.00 crores as an expenditure incurred u/s.37

ANJANI PORTLAND CEMENT LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ADDL.CIT, RANGE-1, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 1493/HYD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Ms. Geetindar Mann
Section 14ASection 32(1)(ii)

condone the said delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 16. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 12 ITA Nos. 1305 & 1493/Hyd/14 & CO No. 13/H/16 “1. The learned CIT(A)-3, Hyderabad (CIT(A) erred in not allowing the non compete fee of Rs.4.00 crores as an expenditure incurred u/s.37

GAUTHAM KUMAR SUNKATA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-4(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 742/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.742/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Shri Gautam Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer Sunkata, Ward 4(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Cfwps7723F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: N O N E राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri K.N. Suresh Babu, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 29/08/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 02/09/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: : Shri K.N. Suresh Babu, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 194HSection 249(2)Section 270ASection 40a

194H and 194C of the Act, thus, an amount of Rs. 36,23,143/- being 30% on (Rs. 79,11,807+ Rs. 41,65,337/-) was disallowed under the provisions of section 40a(ia) of the Income Tax and the same was added to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s 270A for under reporting of income were

ICONCEPT SOFTWARE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,TDS,CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 481/HYD/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Feb 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddya.Y. 2017-18 Iconcept Software Services Vs. Acit, Private Limited, Tds, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aabci 3086 J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sri S. Rama Rao Revenue By Sri T. Sunil Goutam, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing: 18/01/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 22/02/2022 Order

Section 133ASection 154Section 192Section 194HSection 194JSection 194J(1)(ba)Section 201Section 201(1)

194H or U/s. 194J which works out to 10% of the amount. 10. Any other ground or grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing.” 3. At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted before us that there is a delay of 66 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. In this regard, the Ld. AR stated that