Search: condonation of delay | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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

Pune157 Delhi149 Bangalore117 Chennai80 Raipur39 Mumbai25 Karnataka22 Kolkata18 Cochin13 Panaji10 Rajkot9 Dehradun8 Lucknow7 Hyderabad6 Chandigarh6 Jodhpur5 Jaipur4 Amritsar4 Ahmedabad3 Cuttack3 Indore3 Nagpur2 Varanasi2

Key Topics

Section 206C61 TDS7 Natural Justice7 Limitation/Time-bar6

THE DISTRICT MINING OFFICER,BAREILLY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), BAREILLY

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

ITA 246/LKW/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Jun 2025AY 2008-09

Section 206CSection 250

condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the issue of limitation for passing orders under section 206C

THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE COLLECTORATE,SHAHJAHANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), BAREILLY

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee for Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2015-16 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 302/LKW/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow18 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Kumar Yadav, Advocate

For Respondent: Shri Amit Nigarm, D.R

Section 206C

section 206C of the I.T. Act, due to default on the part of the assessee in collecting the tax at source (TCS) in respect of Royalty amount received for these six years. The assessee challenged the orders of the Assessing Officer by filing appeals before the ld. CIT(A) and there was a delay of six months in filing

THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE COLLECTORATE,SHAHJAHANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), BAREILLY

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee for Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2015-16 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 303/LKW/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow18 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Kumar Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Nigarm, D.R

section 206C of the I.T. Act, due to default on the part of the assessee in collecting the tax at source (TCS) in respect of Royalty amount received for these six years. The assessee challenged the orders of the Assessing Officer by filing appeals before the ld. CIT(A) and there was a delay of six months in filing

THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE COLLECTORATE,SHAHJAHANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), BAREILLY

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee for Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2015-16 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 304/LKW/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow18 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Kumar Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Nigarm, D.R

section 206C of the I.T. Act, due to default on the part of the assessee in collecting the tax at source (TCS) in respect of Royalty amount received for these six years. The assessee challenged the orders of the Assessing Officer by filing appeals before the ld. CIT(A) and there was a delay of six months in filing

THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE COLLECTORATE,SHAHJAHANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), BAREILLY

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee for Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2015-16 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 305/LKW/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow18 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Kumar Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Nigarm, D.R

section 206C of the I.T. Act, due to default on the part of the assessee in collecting the tax at source (TCS) in respect of Royalty amount received for these six years. The assessee challenged the orders of the Assessing Officer by filing appeals before the ld. CIT(A) and there was a delay of six months in filing

THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE COLLECTORATE,SHAHJAHANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), BAREILLY

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee for Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2015-16 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 306/LKW/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow18 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Kumar Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Nigarm, D.R

section 206C of the I.T. Act, due to default on the part of the assessee in collecting the tax at source (TCS) in respect of Royalty amount received for these six years. The assessee challenged the orders of the Assessing Officer by filing appeals before the ld. CIT(A) and there was a delay of six months in filing

THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE COLLECTORATE,SHAHJAHANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), BAREILLY

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee for Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2015-16 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 307/LKW/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow18 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Kumar Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Nigarm, D.R

section 206C of the I.T. Act, due to default on the part of the assessee in collecting the tax at source (TCS) in respect of Royalty amount received for these six years. The assessee challenged the orders of the Assessing Officer by filing appeals before the ld. CIT(A) and there was a delay of six months in filing