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 200A(1)(c)clear

Sorted by relevance

Patna466Pune420Chennai308Delhi194Bangalore170Mumbai80Visakhapatnam54Nagpur41Cochin35Jaipur31Karnataka21Dehradun21Hyderabad15Surat14Ahmedabad13Agra10Kolkata10Panaji10Amritsar9Jodhpur8Lucknow8Indore6Raipur6Ranchi4Chandigarh4Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 234E31Section 200A11Section 143(3)8TDS8Condonation of Delay8Section 220(2)7Deduction5Natural Justice5Limitation/Time-bar

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TUBEWELL DIVISION,BARABANKI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS)-II, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 104/LKW/2021[2015-2016(26 Q - Q1)]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Nov 2022

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 200ASection 220(2)Section 234E

condoned the delay and ld. AR was asked to proceed with his argument. 4. Since a common issue relating to levy of fees u/s. 234E of the Act is involved in all these appeals, they are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. Notice in this case was sent to the assessee. Common grounds involved

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TUBEWELL DIVISION,BARABANKI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS)-II, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 106/LKW/2021[2015-2016 (26 Q - Q3)]Status: Disposed
5
Section 2504
Section 1544
Section 372
ITAT Lucknow
30 Nov 2022

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 200ASection 220(2)Section 234E

condoned the delay and ld. AR was asked to proceed with his argument. 4. Since a common issue relating to levy of fees u/s. 234E of the Act is involved in all these appeals, they are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. Notice in this case was sent to the assessee. Common grounds involved

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TUBEWELL DIVISION,BARABANKI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS)-II, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 103/LKW/2021[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Nov 2022AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 200ASection 220(2)Section 234E

condoned the delay and ld. AR was asked to proceed with his argument. 4. Since a common issue relating to levy of fees u/s. 234E of the Act is involved in all these appeals, they are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. Notice in this case was sent to the assessee. Common grounds involved

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TUBEWELL DIVISION ,BARABANKI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS)-II, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 107/LKW/2021[2015-2016 (26 Q - Q 4)]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Nov 2022

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 200ASection 220(2)Section 234E

condoned the delay and ld. AR was asked to proceed with his argument. 4. Since a common issue relating to levy of fees u/s. 234E of the Act is involved in all these appeals, they are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. Notice in this case was sent to the assessee. Common grounds involved

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TUBEWELL DIVISION,BARABANKI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS)-II, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 105/LKW/2021[2015-2016 (26 Q - Q2)]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Nov 2022

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 200ASection 220(2)Section 234E

condoned the delay and ld. AR was asked to proceed with his argument. 4. Since a common issue relating to levy of fees u/s. 234E of the Act is involved in all these appeals, they are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. Notice in this case was sent to the assessee. Common grounds involved

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

C to F of sub section 1 of section 200A only had prospective effect and did not have a retroactive character. Resultantly, the intimation for payment of fee under section 234E could not be made in purported exercise of the power under section 200A, for the respondent for the period of the respective assessment year prior to 1.06.2015. The assessee

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

C.Ι.Τ.(A) and thus the Order is bad in law and liable to be cancelled. (2) The Ld. C.I.T. (A) erred on facts and in law in not considering that the issue pending in the Quantum Appeal filed against Order of Ld. A.CIT, Range-I, Lucknow dated ITA Nos.386 & 387/LKW/2023 Page 2 of 6 12.12.2017 was with respect

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

C.Ι.Τ.(A) and thus the Order is bad in law and liable to be cancelled. (2) The Ld. C.I.T. (A) erred on facts and in law in not considering that the issue pending in the Quantum Appeal filed against Order of Ld. A.CIT, Range-I, Lucknow dated ITA Nos.386 & 387/LKW/2023 Page 2 of 6 12.12.2017 was with respect