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.

7 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 206Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Pune199Delhi149Bangalore117Chennai80Raipur39Mumbai25Karnataka22Kolkata18Nagpur16Ahmedabad16Lucknow14Cochin13Jodhpur12Panaji10Rajkot9Dehradun8Jaipur7Hyderabad6Cuttack6Chandigarh6Amritsar4Indore3Varanasi2

Key Topics

Section 201(1)12Section 206C11TDS7Section 2016Section 249(2)5Section 54Section 272A(2)(k)3Section 200(3)3Section 2503Deduction

MANOJ KUMAR JAIN PROP. MS BAJAJ RE ROLLING MILLS,KOTA vs. ITO(TDS), KOTA, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are disposed off accordingly

ITA 593/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Dec 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl. CIT)
Section 201Section 201(1)Section 206CSection 206C(1)Section 250

delay liberally and in essence held that there was substantial compliance with the requirement of filing the declaration.” Karnataka Forest Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. ITO, TDS 2015 ITL 1007 (Bang.) (Trib.) Section 206C(1A) mandates that any person responsible for collecting tax under section 206C(1) need not do so if he obtains a declaration from the buyer that

3
Penalty2
Limitation/Time-bar2

MANOJ KUMAR JAIN PROP. MS BAJAJ RE ROLLING MILLS,KOTA vs. ITO(TDS), KOTA, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are disposed off accordingly

ITA 592/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl. CIT)
Section 201Section 201(1)Section 206CSection 206C(1)Section 250

delay liberally and in essence held that there was substantial compliance with the requirement of filing the declaration.” Karnataka Forest Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. ITO, TDS 2015 ITL 1007 (Bang.) (Trib.) Section 206C(1A) mandates that any person responsible for collecting tax under section 206C(1) need not do so if he obtains a declaration from the buyer that

MANOJ KUMAR JAIN, PROP. MS BAJAJ RE ROLLING MILLS,KOTA vs. ITO(TDS), KOTA, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are disposed off accordingly

ITA 591/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl. CIT)
Section 201Section 201(1)Section 206CSection 206C(1)Section 250

delay liberally and in essence held that there was substantial compliance with the requirement of filing the declaration.” Karnataka Forest Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. ITO, TDS 2015 ITL 1007 (Bang.) (Trib.) Section 206C(1A) mandates that any person responsible for collecting tax under section 206C(1) need not do so if he obtains a declaration from the buyer that

SUBHASH CHAND NAWAL (HUF),AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AJMER

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

ITA 1037/JPR/2017[2014-15 (26Q-Q1, 2, 3, 4TH)]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Mar 2018
For Appellant: None (One set W.S. filed)For Respondent: Shri J.C. Kulhari (JCIT)
Section 192Section 200(3)Section 206CSection 234ESection 249(2)Section 5

condonation of delay. "When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have a vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay." The fee for default in furnishing statement U/s 234E of the Act can be levied

CANTT BOARD,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), AJMER, AJMER

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 660/JPR/2017[2014-15 (F.Y. 2013-14 FORM 24Q-Q3 )]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2017
For Appellant: WRITTEN SUBMISSIONSFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Mallik (Addl.CIT)
Section 249(2)Section 282Section 282(2)Section 5Section 66A

condonation of delay. "When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have a vested right in injustice being done because of a non- deliberate delay." The fee for default in furnishing statement U/s 234E of the Act can be levied

JAGDAMBA TOLLES,DHOLPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE BHARATPUR

In the result ground no. 2

ITA 644/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sh. Rahul Pandya (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a
Section 143(3)Section 206C

206C is as per below:- (1C) Every person, who grants a lease or a licence or enters into a contract or otherwise transfers any right or interest either in whole or in part in any parking lot or toll plaza or mine or quarry, to another person, other than a public sector company (hereafter in this section referred

MAHAVIR PRASAD JIAN,TONK vs. ITO, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 649/JPR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: This Bench.

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Jain (CA)For Respondent: Shri K. C. Meena (Addl. CIT)
Section 200(3)Section 272Section 272ASection 272A(2)(k)Section 273B

condoned. However, the reply so filed by the assessee was not found acceptable to the Assessing Officer who held that there was no reasonable cause which prevented him from filing TDS statement in time and an amount equivalent to TDS of Rs. 41,500/- was levied as penalty u/s 272A(2)(k) of the Act. On appeal