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.

12 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 200A(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Patna466Pune125Chennai106Delhi78Nagpur41Visakhapatnam29Bangalore24Cochin23Dehradun19Surat19Hyderabad16Mumbai15Jaipur12Panaji10Kolkata7Amritsar6Raipur6Rajkot5Indore5Agra4Chandigarh3Lucknow3Guwahati2Jabalpur1Jodhpur1Ahmedabad1

Key Topics

Section 234E21Section 15411Section 200A10TDS10Condonation of Delay10Section 139(9)6Section 2344Section 12Natural Justice

DYNAMIC POWERTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 231/JPR/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 May 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 154Section 250

delay of 81 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, land Acquisition vs. 4 Dynamic Powertech Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT Mst. Katiji and Others, 167 ITR 471 (SC) as the assessee is prevented by sufficient cause. 6. Having admitted the appeal

AJMER VIDHUT VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED, RAWATBHATA,RAWATBHATA, CHITTORGARH vs. ITO (TDS), CHITTORGARH, RAWATBHATA, CHITTORGARH

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

2
ITA 1513/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

For Appellant: Sh. Sunil Porwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-Sr.DR
Section 200ASection 234E

condone the delay of 3636 days before Ld. CIT(A). 10. Now coming to the fact of the case bench noted that the intimation u/s 200A/206CB was issued on 12.03.2014 levying a fee of Rs. 58,100/- u/s 234E of the Act, for the alleged delay in filing quarterly statement of TDS in Form No. 24 for the 2nd quarter

AJMER VIDHUT NITRAN NIGAM LIMITED, RAWATBHATA,RAWATBHATA, CHITTORGARH vs. ITO (TDS), CHITTORGARH, RAWATBHATA, CHITTORGARH

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 1510/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

For Appellant: Sh. Sunil Porwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-Sr.DR
Section 200ASection 234E

condone the delay of 3636 days before Ld. CIT(A). 10. Now coming to the fact of the case bench noted that the intimation u/s 200A/206CB was issued on 12.03.2014 levying a fee of Rs. 58,100/- u/s 234E of the Act, for the alleged delay in filing quarterly statement of TDS in Form No. 24 for the 2nd quarter

AJMER VIDHUT VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED, RAWATBHATA,RAWATBHATA vs. ITO (TDS), CHITTORGARH, RAWATBHATA, CHITTORGARH

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 1511/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

For Appellant: Sh. Sunil Porwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-Sr.DR
Section 200ASection 234E

condone the delay of 3636 days before Ld. CIT(A). 10. Now coming to the fact of the case bench noted that the intimation u/s 200A/206CB was issued on 12.03.2014 levying a fee of Rs. 58,100/- u/s 234E of the Act, for the alleged delay in filing quarterly statement of TDS in Form No. 24 for the 2nd quarter

AJMER VIDHUT VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED, RAWATBHATA,RAWATBHATA, CHITTORGARH vs. ITO (TDS), CHITTORGARH, CHITTORGARH

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 1512/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

For Appellant: Sh. Sunil Porwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-Sr.DR
Section 200ASection 234E

condone the delay of 3636 days before Ld. CIT(A). 10. Now coming to the fact of the case bench noted that the intimation u/s 200A/206CB was issued on 12.03.2014 levying a fee of Rs. 58,100/- u/s 234E of the Act, for the alleged delay in filing quarterly statement of TDS in Form No. 24 for the 2nd quarter

AJMER VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED, BHUPALSAGAR,BHUPALSAGAR vs. ITO (TDS), CHITTORGARH, CHITTORGARH

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 1506/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

For Appellant: Sh. Sunil Porwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-Sr.DR
Section 200ASection 234E

condone the delay of 3636 days before Ld. CIT(A). 10. Now coming to the fact of the case bench noted that the intimation u/s 200A/206CB was issued on 12.03.2014 levying a fee of Rs. 58,100/- u/s 234E of the Act, for the alleged delay in filing quarterly statement of TDS in Form No. 24 for the 2nd quarter

AJMER VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED, BHUPALSAGAR,BHUPALSAGAR vs. ITO (TDS), CHITTORGARH, BHUPALSAGAR, CHITTORGARH

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 1507/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

For Appellant: Sh. Sunil Porwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-Sr.DR
Section 200ASection 234E

condone the delay of 3636 days before Ld. CIT(A). 10. Now coming to the fact of the case bench noted that the intimation u/s 200A/206CB was issued on 12.03.2014 levying a fee of Rs. 58,100/- u/s 234E of the Act, for the alleged delay in filing quarterly statement of TDS in Form No. 24 for the 2nd quarter

AJMER VIDYUT NIGAM LIMITED, BHUPALSAGAR,BHUPALSAGAR vs. ITO (TDS), CHITTORGARH, BHUPALSAGAR

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 1508/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

For Appellant: Sh. Sunil Porwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-Sr.DR
Section 200ASection 234E

condone the delay of 3636 days before Ld. CIT(A). 10. Now coming to the fact of the case bench noted that the intimation u/s 200A/206CB was issued on 12.03.2014 levying a fee of Rs. 58,100/- u/s 234E of the Act, for the alleged delay in filing quarterly statement of TDS in Form No. 24 for the 2nd quarter

AJMER VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED, BHUPALSAGAR,BHUPALSAGAR, CHITTORGARH vs. ITO (TDS), CHITTORGARH, CHITTORGARH

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 1509/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

For Appellant: Sh. Sunil Porwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-Sr.DR
Section 200ASection 234E

condone the delay of 3636 days before Ld. CIT(A). 10. Now coming to the fact of the case bench noted that the intimation u/s 200A/206CB was issued on 12.03.2014 levying a fee of Rs. 58,100/- u/s 234E of the Act, for the alleged delay in filing quarterly statement of TDS in Form No. 24 for the 2nd quarter

AVVNL AEN CSD-II,,SIKAR vs. DCIT, CPC(TDS), , GHAZIABAD

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

ITA 258/JPR/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh (Addl.CIT)
Section 1Section 200ASection 234Section 234E

section 1 of 200A. 1. The assesse has Filed an appeal with Ld CIT (appeals) JAIPUR which was technically delayed. The delay in filing the appeal was due to the fact non/delay service of order and thereafter incumbent officer got transferred and we did not find any notice or not about relating to the said matter hence being unaware

XEN (O&M=M) AJMER VIDHYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD.,AJMER vs. DCIT, CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is dismissed

ITA 1064/JPR/2019[2013-14-24 Q-2]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Jan 2024

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri NoneFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh (Addl.CIT)
Section 1Section 200ASection 234Section 234E

3. The Ld CIT(appeals) has erred in dismissing Appeal as not admitted without considering the case on merits. Refusing to condone delay has result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. 4. The Tax was deducted & Deposited in time, the only default is delay in filing of the return

WHOLERY INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 525/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 139(9)Section 154Section 154(1)(a)Section 44A

delay of 13 days has been condoned. The assessee has raised ground of appeal with the grievance that Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in passing rectification order u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In this regard assessee has stated that 1. That the Ld. AO has passed the order u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 rejecting