Search: condonation of delay

3 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 206C(6)clear

Sorted by relevance

Raipur39 Chennai38 Pune19 Delhi16 Cochin13 Kolkata12 Panaji10 Rajkot9 Dehradun8 Bangalore8 Jodhpur5 Jaipur4 Mumbai4 Amritsar3 Indore3 Hyderabad3 Ahmedabad1 Lucknow1

Key Topics

Section 234E7 Section 201(1)6 Section 2015 Section 1544 Section 206C3 Section 220(2)3 TDS3 Section 206C(7)2 Section 250

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)

condone the delay of 133 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 6. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is engaged in Hotel business. The assessee in the instant case, as per the information available on record, it is noticed that,, in the Financial Year 2019–20, relevant

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

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

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

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

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