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 200A(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Patna466Pune125Chennai106Delhi78Nagpur41Visakhapatnam29Bangalore24Cochin23Dehradun19Surat19Hyderabad16Mumbai15Jaipur12Panaji10Kolkata7Amritsar6Raipur6Rajkot5Indore5Agra4Chandigarh3Lucknow3Guwahati2Jabalpur1Jodhpur1Ahmedabad1

Key Topics

Section 234E20Section 200A9TDS5Section 220(2)4Section 246A3Section 200(3)3Condonation of Delay3Section 253(5)2Section 253

SUPREME TRANSPORT COMPANY,INDORE vs. ITO TDS-II, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 914/IND/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 234E

3) that too by expressly put bar for penalty under section 272A by insertion of proviso to Section 272A(2), it can be said 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

SUPREME TRANSPORT COMPANY,INDORE vs. ITO TDS-II, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 917/IND/2024[2013-14]Status: Disposed
2
Section 2502
ITAT Indore
13 Oct 2025
AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 234E

3) that too by expressly put bar for penalty under section 272A by insertion of proviso to Section 272A(2), it can be said 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

BMG CALCUTTAWALA JEWELLERS PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. AO CPC (TDS), ITO TDS(1) INDORE, INDORE

Appeals are allowed\"

ITA 136/IND/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Nov 2025AY 2013-14
Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200A(1)Section 234ESection 246ASection 250Section 253

delay in filing of\nTDS statements. In this sense, insertion of clause\n(c) to section 200A(1), is only an addendum to the\nsection to provide for the machinery provision to\ncompute the fee payable u/s 234E at the time of\nprocessing of TDS statement and the same is\nenabling for processes in nature. This is very much\nevident

KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA BARWANI M P,BARWANI vs. DCIT CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 647/IND/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Mar 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 154Section 154rSection 200ASection 220(2)Section 234ESection 246ASection 250Section 253

200A of the Income Tax, 1961 dated on 09.02.2024 and determined on account of interest under section 220(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 the amount of Rs.12,190/- for quarter 24Q-4 for the Financial year 2013-14 relevant to Assessment year 2014-15 which according to assessee in any case is neither legal nor proper. 2.6 That

AMEY JAIN,INDORE vs. OFFICER, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 296/IND/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Mar 2026AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year: 2019-20 Amey Jain, Ito 1(1), 127, Anurag Nagar Bh Indore Press Complex, बनाम/ Vijay Nagar, Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aqbpj1217D Assessee By Shri Harsh Choukse & Shri Kunal Agrawal, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27.03.2026

Section 194Section 200ASection 201Section 234ESection 253(5)

3. The averments made by assessee in above application, which are self- explanatory and which do not require repetition, were discussed and the Ld. DR for revenue does not have any objection if the bench condones delay and accordingly left it to the wisdom of bench. We have considered the explanation advanced by assessee and in absence of any contrary