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.

6 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 206Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Pune157Delhi149Bangalore117Chennai80Raipur39Mumbai25Karnataka22Kolkata18Cochin13Panaji10Rajkot9Dehradun8Lucknow7Hyderabad6Chandigarh6Jodhpur5Jaipur4Amritsar4Ahmedabad3Cuttack3Indore3Nagpur2Varanasi2

Key Topics

Section 234E7Section 272A(2)(k)6Section 201(1)6TDS6Section 200(3)5Section 2015Section 1544Section 206C3Section 272A3

KARTHIKEYA HOTELS,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, WARD-1(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1446/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: the Tribunal. Shri D. Veera Reddy, being the partner of the assessee and who looks after the affairs of the assessee, has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons that, the appeal relates to proceedings under Section 206C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and that the order of Ld. CIT(A) dated 27.02.2025 was received by email on 27.02.2025. The partner of the assessee was not well and was having medical issues which required frequent visits to the hospitals and upon performing various procedures

Section 206CSection 206C(7)

Section 206C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and that the order of Ld. CIT(A) dated 27.02.2025 was received by email on 27.02.2025. The partner of the assessee was not well and was having medical issues which required frequent visits to the hospitals and upon performing various procedures, he was diagnosed with kidney issues, and that he was under

VIVIMED LABS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

Penalty3
Addition to Income3
Survey u/s 133A3

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee company, being devoid and bereft of any substance, is dismissed

ITA 1236/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1236 & 1237/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2021-22 & 2022-23) Vivimed Labs Limited, Vs. Dcit, Hyderabad. Central Circle-3(4), Pan: Aaacv6060A Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "वारा/Revenue By: Shri K. Vinoth Kannan, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of 05/01/2026 Hearing: घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 21/01/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. Vinoth Kannan
Section 154Section 200Section 200(3)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 220(2)Section 234ESection 250Section 311

206C(3) of the Act, therefore, as per the clear mandate of section 234E of the Act, it was liable to pay by way of fee, a sum of Rs.200/- for every day during which the failure continued. The CIT(A) based on his aforesaid observations, found no infirmity in the levy of fee under section 234E

VIVIMED LABS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 1237/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jan 2026AY 2022-23
For Appellant: \nShri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: \nShri K. Vinoth Kannan
Section 154Section 200Section 201Section 201(1)Section 220(2)Section 234ESection 250Section 311

206C(3) of the Act, therefore, as per the\nclear mandate of section 234E of the Act, it was liable to pay by way of fee, a\nsum of Rs.200/- for every day during which the failure continued. The CIT(A)\nbased on his aforesaid observations, found no infirmity in the levy of fee under\nsection 234E

TELANGANA STATE MEDICAL SERVICES INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, TDS, RANGE-3, VIJAYAWADA, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, all three appeals under consideration are allowed in above terms

ITA 1528/HYD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar
Section 133ASection 200(3)Section 272ASection 272A(2)(k)

condoned. Another plea raised by some of the assessee was that where the tax deducted at source was not paid in time, e-TDS returns as such could not be filed and hence, the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause in not filing e- TDS returns in time and as such, no merit in levy of penalty. Another plea raised

TELANGANA STATE MEDICAL SERVICES INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, TDS, RANGE-3, VIJAYAWADA, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, all three appeals under consideration are allowed in above terms

ITA 1529/HYD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar
Section 133ASection 200(3)Section 272ASection 272A(2)(k)

condoned. Another plea raised by some of the assessee was that where the tax deducted at source was not paid in time, e-TDS returns as such could not be filed and hence, the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause in not filing e- TDS returns in time and as such, no merit in levy of penalty. Another plea raised

TELANGANA STATE MEDICAL SERVICES INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, TDS, RANGE-3, VIJAYAWADA, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, all three appeals under consideration are allowed in above terms

ITA 1530/HYD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar
Section 133ASection 200(3)Section 272ASection 272A(2)(k)

condoned. Another plea raised by some of the assessee was that where the tax deducted at source was not paid in time, e-TDS returns as such could not be filed and hence, the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause in not filing e- TDS returns in time and as such, no merit in levy of penalty. Another plea raised