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.

47 results for “TDS”+ Condonation of Delayclear

Sorted by relevance

Patna615Chennai388Mumbai315Delhi280Pune237Raipur209Nagpur187Hyderabad172Kolkata156Chandigarh140Bangalore132Jaipur124Ahmedabad88Cuttack68Cochin68Visakhapatnam50Lucknow47Surat44Indore37Rajkot32Dehradun23Amritsar20Panaji16Jodhpur11Guwahati10Ranchi7Jabalpur7Agra7Allahabad5Varanasi5

Key Topics

TDS31Section 1128Addition to Income26Condonation of Delay22Section 143(3)20Section 25019Deduction16Section 26315Section 272A(2)(k)15Section 154

VIL LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, LUCKNOW.

In the result, these three appeals are dismissed

ITA 90/LKW/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow12 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

delay in allowing credit of TDS a mount and consequential refund to the appellant on account of mismatch that is not attributable to the appellant entitles the appellant for payment of refund and also interest thereon. 10. Because, the Ld. CIT (A) has grossly erred in rejecting the appeal of the assessee as the assessee company underwent CIRP Proceeding

VIL LIMITED,LUCKNOW. vs. DY. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, LUCKNOW., LUCKNOW

In the result, these three appeals are dismissed

ITA 91/LKW/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow12 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

delay in allowing credit of TDS a mount and consequential refund to the appellant on account of mismatch that is not attributable to the appellant entitles the appellant for payment of refund and also interest thereon. 10. Because, the Ld. CIT (A) has grossly erred in rejecting the appeal of the assessee as the assessee company underwent CIRP Proceeding

Showing 1–20 of 47 · Page 1 of 3

14
Section 80P14
Section 10(5)14

VIL LIMITED,LUCKNOW. vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, LUCKNOW.

In the result, these three appeals are dismissed

ITA 88/LKW/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow12 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

delay in allowing credit of TDS a mount and consequential refund to the appellant on account of mismatch that is not attributable to the appellant entitles the appellant for payment of refund and also interest thereon. 10. Because, the Ld. CIT (A) has grossly erred in rejecting the appeal of the assessee as the assessee company underwent CIRP Proceeding

M/S MODEL EXIM,KANPUR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 137/LKW/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow05 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriam/S. Model Exim Pcit (Central) V. 624-C, Defence Colony, 7/81-B, Tilak Nagar, Jajmau, Kanpur-208010. Kanpur. Pan:Aadfm6163H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Swaran Singh, C.A. Respondent By: Smt Namita S. Pandey, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 29 10 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 05 11 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Swaran Singh, C.AFor Respondent: Smt Namita S. Pandey, CIT(DR)
Section 139Section 153CSection 153DSection 263Section 263(1)

condone the delay in filing of appeal before us and admit the appeal for adjudication. 7. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a firm engaged in the business of manufacturing and export of finished leather and sale of license. The assessee company had filed its Page 9 of 24 return of income

SHRI RAMESH SINGH RANA,LUCKNOW vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 576/LKW/2019[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Lucknow17 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.576/Lkw/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Ramesh Singh Rana V. Dcit Range-4 3-B, Talkatora Road, Rajaji 5-Ashok Marg, Aaykar Puram, Lucknow-226017. Bhawan, Lucknow- 226001. Pan:Aggpr0749B अपीलाथ"/(Appellant) ""यथ"/(Respondent) अपीलाथ" "क और से/Appellant By: None ""यथ" "क और से /Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) सुनवाई "क तार"ख / Date Of Hearing: 08 04 2025 घोषणा "क तार"ख/ Date Of 17 04 2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / O R D E R Per Anadee Nath Misshra, A.M.: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-2, Lucknow Dated 11.06.2019, Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: -

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl
Section 133(3)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

condone the delay in filing of this appeal and admit the appeal for decision on merits. 3. In this case, assessment order dated 29/03/2015 was passed by the Assessing Officer (“AO”, for short), u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”, for short) whereby the assessee’s total income was assessed at Rs.1

MANOJ DWIVEDI,LUCKNOW vs. ITO-3(1), LUCKNOW

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

ITA 619/LKW/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow15 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI KUL BHARAT (Vice President), SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)

condonation of delay filed by the appellant in Column 13 of Form 35, is as below: - "The Email given in the profile at CPC portal was of an employee with one of Companies in which appellant was director who had left employment and the offices of the companies were also closed due to sickness. The appellant was also medically unwell

NEYVELI UTTAR PRADESH POWER LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. ITO - 2(1), LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 153/LKW/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Sept 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri Venkat Ramanan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 250

delay in filing of the appeals. 5. Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the action of the Addl/JCIT(A)-9, Delhi by raising the following common grounds of appeal: 1. The Order of the Ld. Addl/JCIT (A) ought not to have dismissed the application for condonation at the threshold itself without considering the fact that the Appellant

NEYVELI UTTAR PRADESH POWER LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. ITO - 2(1), LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 151/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri Venkat Ramanan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 250

delay in filing of the appeals. 5. Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the action of the Addl/JCIT(A)-9, Delhi by raising the following common grounds of appeal: 1. The Order of the Ld. Addl/JCIT (A) ought not to have dismissed the application for condonation at the threshold itself without considering the fact that the Appellant

JAMUNA DEVI NARESH CHANDRA MAHAVIDYALAYA,JALAUN vs. ITO-TDS, KANPUR

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

ITA 464/LKW/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow21 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, DR
Section 200ASection 220(2)Section 234E

delay in the filing of the appeal be condoned and the appeal may be adjudicated on the basis of the grounds on which relief had been sought. After considering the matter, in the interest of justice, the appeal is admitted and taken up for hearing. 3. The facts of the case are that the assessee filed TDS

AMITA SINGH,LUCKNOW vs. ITO RANGE-6(1), LUCKNOW

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

ITA 441/LKW/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 144Section 144ASection 147Section 249(3)

condoning the delay of 177 days in filing of appeal without considering that there was a Reasonable Cause for delay in filing of appeal. 2. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC erred on facts and in law in not considering that reasons for delay were explained in the course of Appellate Proceeding on 15.09.2023. WITHOUT PRETUDICE TO ABOVE 3. That

AMAN INFRAPROPERTIES P. LTD,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT RANGE-1, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 387/LKW/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow16 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

For Appellant: Shri Shubham Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234ESection 250Section 37

condone the delay and admit this appeal for hearing. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee- company e-filed its return of income on 30.09.2015, declaring a total income of Rs.24,61,560/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS and the assessment was completed under section

AMAN INFRAPROPERTIES P. LTD,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT RANGE-1, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 386/LKW/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow16 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

For Appellant: Shri Shubham Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234ESection 250Section 37

condone the delay and admit this appeal for hearing. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee- company e-filed its return of income on 30.09.2015, declaring a total income of Rs.24,61,560/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS and the assessment was completed under section

DR. R.M. LOHIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES,LUCKNOW vs. NFAC, , DELHI

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

ITA 519/LKW/2025[201-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow13 Jan 2026

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. B.P. Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Neeraj Kumar, CIT DR
Section 10Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 194CSection 194J

delayed by 284 days. A condonation petition and an affidavit have been filed by the Financial Controller of the assessee institute, wherein it has been stated that the assessee had hired a C.A. to handle its case before the Income Tax Authorities and was under the impression that the said C.A. was attending to the assessment and appeal matters promptly

MRS. RANJANA,MRIZAPUR vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI

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

ITA 505/LKW/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2015-16 Mrs Ranjana V. The Assessing Officer Village Dewapur Pachwal Nafc Post Rajapur, Aamghat Mirzapur (U.P) Tan/Pan:Aoxpr7130M (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant By: Shri Narendra Kumar Sahu, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.03.2025, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Not Filed Her Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That The Assessee Had Purchased An Immovable Property Valued At Rs.60,00,000/- . The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) After Issuing Notice To The Assessee Under Section 148 Of The Act. However, The Assessee Neither Responded To The Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act Nor Filed Any Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Assessing Officer (Ao)

For Respondent: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

condone the delay in filing of the appeal and admit the appeal for hearing. 5.0 The Ld. A.R. submitted that the NFAC had erred in sustaining the addition to the extent of Rs.7.30 lakhs, as the assessee’s father enjoyed agricultural income as well as also had accumulated savings, which were deposited in the bank to the tune of Rs.6.00

M/S HINDUSTAN SEVA TRUST,SHAHJAHANPUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 390/LKW/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Aug 2025

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. S.H. Usmani, CIT DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(ii)

TDS) (ITA 3143/BANG/2018) V. Midas Polymer Compounds Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, Kottayam (ITA 288/COCH/2017) In view of the circumstances narrated and the judicial pronouncements cited, it was prayed that the delay in filing the appeal may kindly be condoned

M/S HINDUSTAN SEVA TRUST,SHAHJAHANPUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 391/LKW/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Aug 2025

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. S.H. Usmani, CIT DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(ii)

TDS) (ITA 3143/BANG/2018) V. Midas Polymer Compounds Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, Kottayam (ITA 288/COCH/2017) In view of the circumstances narrated and the judicial pronouncements cited, it was prayed that the delay in filing the appeal may kindly be condoned

ABHISHEK TRIPATHI,JHINJHAK KANPUR DEHAT vs. ITO, WARD-1(3)(1), KANPUR, KANPUR

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

ITA 489/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Abhishek Tripathi V. The Ito Ward No.15, Shankarganj Ward 1(3)(1) Jhinjhak Kanpur Kanpur Dehat (U.P) Tan/Pan:Atjpt8479N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Kamlesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Kamlesh Kumar Pandey, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R
Section 144Section 271BSection 44A

TDS due to industry practices at the time. Thus, there was no underreporting of income, and the addition of Rs.13,24,310/- lacks any factual OR legal basis. 4. Turnover Below Threshold for Audit- No Default u/s 271B: The authorities failed to appreciate that the assessee's actual gross receipts (commission) were Rs.6,40,017/- only, well below the Rs.71

M/S SHRI RADHE SHYAM SHRI KRISHAN EDUCATION SAMITI,SHAHJAHANPUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION, LUCKNOW

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

ITA 389/LKW/2024[00]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Sept 2025

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. M/S Shri Radhe Shyam Shri Krishan Vs. Shri. Jeotsnaa Johri, Cit Education Samiti, Vill. Post Kalan, Exemption, Income Tax Jalalabad, Distt. Shahjahanpur- Department, Lucknow, U.P. 242001 (Uttar Pradesh) Pan: Aaras7463D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Sh. Neeraj Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 02.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.09.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: [ This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit (Exemption), Lucknow Denying The Registration Of The Assessee Under Section 12A(1)(Ac)(Iii) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions) Lucknow Has Erred In Rejecting The Grant Of Registration U/S 12A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 To The Assessee With Total Disregard To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Assessee Reserves Its Right To Add, Amend, Alter Or Delete Any Ground Of Appeal At The Time Of Hearing Of Appeal.” 2. At The Very Outset, It Is Seen That The Appeal Is Delayed By 533 Days’. A Condonation Petition Has Been Filed By The Assessee In Which It Was Submitted That The Notices Were Sent To The Email Id Of The Assessee’S Former Tax Advisor Sh. Prabhjot Singh, Who Had Not Checked His Emails & Did Not Inform The Assessee Regarding The Receipt Of Notices. Furthermore, Even After Informing The Assessee, The Said Practitioner Was Of The View That The Said Order Was Rectifiable & Would Be Recalled. It Was Only After The Assessee Changed Its Tax Advisor That It Was Advised

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Neeraj Kumar, CIT DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

TDS) ITA No. 3143/BANG/2018 v. Midas Polymer Compounds Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT Kottayam ITA No. 288/COCH/2017 and relying on such judgments prayed that the delay on the part of the assessee may kindly be condoned

STATE BANK OF INDIA, SMECCC-CODE-5030,KANPUR vs. ITO(TDS)-2, KANPUR

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

ITA 390/LKW/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 10(5)Section 201

delay in filing of the appeals is condoned and the appeals are admitted for decision on merits. 3. For the sake convenience, these appeals are hereby disposed of through this consolidated order. 4. First we take up appeal vide I.T.A. No.390/Lkw/2023. Vide order dated 22/02/2021, a demand amounting to Rs.1,34,035/- was created by Income Tax Officer (TDS

STETE BANK OF INDIA, SMECCC CODE-5030,KANPUR vs. ITO (TDS)-, KANPUR

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

ITA 391/LKW/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 10(5)Section 201

delay in filing of the appeals is condoned and the appeals are admitted for decision on merits. 3. For the sake convenience, these appeals are hereby disposed of through this consolidated order. 4. First we take up appeal vide I.T.A. No.390/Lkw/2023. Vide order dated 22/02/2021, a demand amounting to Rs.1,34,035/- was created by Income Tax Officer (TDS