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.

9 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 200Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Patna466Chennai426Pune368Bangalore224Delhi216Mumbai86Nagpur41Visakhapatnam29Hyderabad29Cochin23Dehradun19Kerala19Surat19Jaipur13Panaji10Kolkata9Lucknow8Amritsar6Raipur6Indore5Rajkot5Chandigarh4Agra4Guwahati2Ahmedabad1Jabalpur1Jodhpur1

Key Topics

Section 234E29Section 200A13Section 2019TDS9Condonation of Delay7Section 2o6Section 249(2)4Deduction4Limitation/Time-bar3

OCEAN MARINE ENVIRONMENT COATINGS PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TDS, WARD - 2(2), KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 295/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kochar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 200A(1)Section 234ESection 249(2)

section 249 provides for condonation of delay if the Ld. CIT(A) is satisfied with the sufficient cause explained by the assessee in respect of the delay. The description available with Ld. CIT(A) for condonation of delay on the basis of sufficient cause has to be dealt with reference to sec. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Various

OCEAN MARINE ENVIRONMENT COATINGS PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TDS, WARD - 2(2), KOLKATA

Section 200A(1)2
Section 2502
Penalty2

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 296/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kochar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 200A(1)Section 234ESection 249(2)

section 249 provides for condonation of delay if the Ld. CIT(A) is satisfied with the sufficient cause explained by the assessee in respect of the delay. The description available with Ld. CIT(A) for condonation of delay on the basis of sufficient cause has to be dealt with reference to sec. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Various

THE PRINCIPAL, SALDIHA COLLEGE,BANKURA vs. ITO, WARD - 4(4), TDS, BANKURA & PURULIA

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2455/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.2455/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) The Principal, Saldiha College Vs. Ito, Ward – 4(4), Tds Bankura & Purulia Saldiha, Bankura – 722 173. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaajs 5748 K (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Dhrubajyoti Roy, Jcit, Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 23/12/2019 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/12/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara, Jm This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), Durgapur Dated 30.07.2018 Passed In Case No.161/Cit(A)/Dgp/2017-18 Involving Proceedings U/S 200A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’). Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused.

For Appellant: Shri S.M. Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dhrubajyoti Roy, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 200ASection 234Section 234ESection 272ASection 2jSection 2oSection 44E

200A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. For the reasons stated in the assessee’s petition dated 26.11.2018 and on account of Revenue’s non rebuttal to the factual averments therein, we condone the impugned delay of 27 days in filing of the instant appeal in the interest

GRAPHITE INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 618/KOL/2022[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Jan 2023AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 618/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2020-2021 Graphite India Limited,.........................Appellant 31, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata-700016 [Pan: Aaacc0457C] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Circle-11(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069

Section 200ASection 201Section 249(2)Section 249(3)

condoned or not in filing appeal before the ld. 1st Appellate Authority. 4. As far as the delay occurred before the ld. 1st Appellate Authority, the assessee has submitted that intimation under section 200A

GOUTAM CHANDRA DAS,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TDS WARD- 1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 678/KOL/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Feb 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 200ASection 201Section 234E

condonation of delay, but ld. CIT(Appeals) did not provide such an opportunity. In his second-fold of submission, he contended that prior to 1st June, 2015, there was no provision in Section 200A

GOUTAM CHANDRA DAS,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TDS WARD- 1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 679/KOL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 200ASection 201Section 234E

condonation of delay, but ld. CIT(Appeals) did not provide such an opportunity. In his second-fold of submission, he contended that prior to 1st June, 2015, there was no provision in Section 200A

GOUTAM CHANDRA DAS,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TDS WARD- 1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 680/KOL/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Feb 2023AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 200ASection 201Section 234E

condonation of delay, but ld. CIT(Appeals) did not provide such an opportunity. In his second-fold of submission, he contended that prior to 1st June, 2015, there was no provision in Section 200A

GOUTAM CHANDRA DAS,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TDS WARD- 1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 681/KOL/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Feb 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 200ASection 201Section 234E

condonation of delay, but ld. CIT(Appeals) did not provide such an opportunity. In his second-fold of submission, he contended that prior to 1st June, 2015, there was no provision in Section 200A

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 253/KOL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Nov 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.253/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2019-20 National Insurance Co. Ltd...................................................................……Appellant 3, Middleton Street, Kolkata- 700071. [Pan: Aaacn9967E] Vs. Acit, Cpc-Tds,Ghaziabad, Up...…...................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sanjoy Bhattacharya, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 29, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 16, 2022 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 25.03.2022 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Was Wrong In Dismissing The Appeal Filed By The Appellant Against The Intimation Dated 02/06/2019 Issued U/S 200A For The Financial Year 2018-19 (Relevant For The Assessment Year 2019- 20). 2. That Without Prejudice To The Contention Raised In Ground No. 1 Above, The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Was Wrong In Stating In The Appellate Order That The Appeal Of The Appellant Had Allegedly Related

Section 195Section 200ASection 201Section 234ESection 250

200A(1)(c) of the Act. It is also evident that after Section 234E w.e.f. 01.07.2012, the assessee deductor who fails to deliver or cause to be delivered a TDS statement(s) within the time prescribed in the provisions of Section 200(3)/206C(3) of the Act, shall be liable