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 234E(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Patna466Pune431Chennai392Delhi224Bangalore212Cochin93Mumbai84Nagpur81Visakhapatnam59Hyderabad53Jaipur38Dehradun21Karnataka21Ahmedabad14Kolkata11Agra10Amritsar10Lucknow10Panaji10Jodhpur9Rajkot8Indore8Raipur6Surat5Chandigarh5Ranchi4Guwahati2Jabalpur1

Key Topics

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

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

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. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel

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
3
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

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. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel

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

2 yrs. 5days in preferring the appeal before us by the assessee. In support of explanation rendered by the assessee for condonation of delay, an affidavit has been filed, perusal of which shows that the notice was not served upon the assessee. The same was received by the staff and not reported to the assessee. The explanation rendered

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

2 yrs. 5days in preferring the appeal before us by the assessee. In support of explanation rendered by the assessee for condonation of delay, an affidavit has been filed, perusal of which shows that the notice was not served upon the assessee. The same was received by the staff and not reported to the assessee. The explanation rendered

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

2 yrs. 5days in preferring the appeal before us by the assessee. In support of explanation rendered by the assessee for condonation of delay, an affidavit has been filed, perusal of which shows that the notice was not served upon the assessee. The same was received by the staff and not reported to the assessee. The explanation rendered

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

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)

2 SCC 387 that whenever substantial justice and technical considerations are opposed to each other, the cause of substantial justice must be preferred by adopting a justice-oriented approach. Thus, taking into account the facts of case, the provision of section 253(5) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal