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.

8 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 234Eclear

Sorted by relevance

Patna466Pune431Chennai392Delhi224Bangalore212Cochin93Mumbai84Nagpur81Visakhapatnam59Hyderabad53Jaipur38Dehradun21Karnataka21Ahmedabad14Kolkata11Agra10Amritsar10Lucknow10Panaji10Jodhpur9Rajkot8Indore8Raipur6Surat5Chandigarh5Ranchi4Guwahati2Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 234E27Section 200A24TDS8Condonation of Delay6Section 220(2)4Section 143(2)4Addition to Income4Section 1543Deduction3

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

delay in filing of TDS statements. In this sense, insertion of clause (c) to section 200A(1), is only an addendum to the section to provide for the machinery provision to compute the fee payable u/s 234E at the time of processing of TDS statement and the same is enabling for processes in nature. This is very much evident

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
Section 253(5)2
Section 246A2
Section 200(3)2
ITAT Indore
13 Oct 2025
AY 2013-14

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

Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 234E

delay in filing of TDS statements. In this sense, insertion of clause (c) to section 200A(1), is only an addendum to the section to provide for the machinery provision to compute the fee payable u/s 234E at the time of processing of TDS statement and the same is enabling for processes in nature. This is very much evident

M/S. M. LODHA IMPEX,RATLAM vs. THE ITO-1, RATLAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 185/IND/2016[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Jun 2018AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 185/Ind/2016 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2000-01 M/S.M.Lodha Impex, Vs. Income-Tax Officer, 117-118, Manak Chowk, Ward 1, Ratlam. Ratlam.

For Appellant: Shri Satiksh Solanki, DRFor Respondent: 29.05.2018
Section 119(1)(b)Section 119(2)(b)Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234A

delay u/s 119(2)(b) to regularize the revised return. The revised return filed by the appellant was not regular return. The revised return has been regularized vide order u/s 119(2)(b) dated 17.01.2008. Therefore, from the date of filing of the revised return till the date of condonation the return remained as non est. The revised return came

PATWA ABHIKARAN P LTD,INDORE vs. ACIT- TDS-CPC , GHAZIABAD

In the result, this appeal is party allowed

ITA 60/IND/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.D.R
Section 200ASection 234E

delay is condoned. ITA Nos .59/Ind/2021 & 60/Ind/2021 for A.Ys. 2013-14 2014-15 3. We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. 4. The issue relates to addition under Section 234E

PATWA ABHIKARAN P LTD,INDORE vs. ACIT- TDS-CPC , GHAZIABAD

In the result, this appeal is party allowed

ITA 59/IND/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.D.R
Section 200ASection 234E

delay is condoned. ITA Nos .59/Ind/2021 & 60/Ind/2021 for A.Ys. 2013-14 2014-15 3. We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. 4. The issue relates to addition under Section 234E

PATWA ABHIKARAN P LTD,INDORE vs. ACIT- TDS-CPC , GHAZIABAD

In the result, this appeal is party allowed

ITA 58/IND/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.D.R
Section 200ASection 234E

delay is condoned. ITA Nos .59/Ind/2021 & 60/Ind/2021 for A.Ys. 2013-14 2014-15 3. We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. 4. The issue relates to addition under Section 234E

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)

section 253(5) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 4. Ld. AR for assessee explained following facts of case: (i) The assessee-individual is an NRI. (ii) On 09.05.2018, the assessee purchased a property for Rs. 53,43,000/- from R.R. Jain Infra (PAN: AAQFR9972C

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

234E of the Income Tax, 1961 of Rs. 10,600/- for Quarter -4 of financial Year 2013-14 respectively without proper appreciating the facts of the case. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld DCIT(CPC)-TDS erred in charging interest under section 220(2) of the Income