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.

61 results for “condonation of delay”+ TDSclear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai996Mumbai637Patna615Delhi600Pune534Bangalore487Kolkata270Hyderabad214Raipur210Nagpur187Chandigarh147Jaipur143Ahmedabad113Cochin68Cuttack68Lucknow61Visakhapatnam50Surat44Indore40Rajkot32Karnataka30Dehradun23Kerala23Amritsar20Panaji16Jodhpur11Guwahati10Ranchi7Agra7Jabalpur7SC7Allahabad5Varanasi5Telangana2Rajasthan1Calcutta1

Key Topics

Section 206C61TDS44Section 234E31Condonation of Delay30Addition to Income29Section 1128Section 26323Limitation/Time-bar22Section 143(3)

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. 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

Showing 1–20 of 61 · Page 1 of 4

21
Deduction21
Section 25019
Natural Justice18

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

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

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 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 106/LKW/2021[2015-2016 (26 Q - Q3)]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

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

TIMECITY REAL ESTATES(INDIA) LIMTED,LUCKNOW vs. PCIT-1, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW

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

ITA 67/LKW/2021[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Aug 2022AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2015-2016

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

delay was condoned and both parties were heard. 3. Learned counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submitted that the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and in the assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer had made certain additions and against which the assessee had filed appeal before learned CIT(A) and when the appeal of the assessee

MR.SHITIJ DHAWAN,KANPUR vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 36/LKW/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 May 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2019-20 Mr. Shitij Dhawan V. The Assessing Officer 122/235, Fazalganj Special Range Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Acqpd3380G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 17 05 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 05 2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R
Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

condonation of delay in filing of the appeal, stating therein that due to glitches in the e-portal of the Income Tax Department, as has repeatedly been admitted by the Ministry of Finance, the order of the Assessing Officer dated 17.11.2021 could not be uploaded and made available to the assessee; that the said order surfaced on the e-portal

KWALITY RESTAURANT,KANPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

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

ITA 34/LKW/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow18 Oct 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2018-19 Kwality Restaurant V. The Cit(A) 16/97, The Mall Delhi Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aaafk8712F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None (Adjournment Application) Respondent By: Shri Amit Nigam, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 18 10 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 18 10 2022 O R D E R This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.9.2021 Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. There Is A Delay Of 115 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay, Which Is Also Supported By An Affidavit. 3. I Have Gone Through The Application For Condonation Of Delay As Well As The Affidavit Filed By The Assessee & Heard The Contention Of The Ld. D.R. On The Issue Of Condonation Of Delay. The Ld. D.R. Has Objected To The Condonatiion Of Delay & Submitted That The Assessee Is Shifting The Blame Of Delay On Its Counsel. 4. Having Considered The Reasons Explained By The Assessee In The Application For Condonation Of Delay, I Find That The Assessee Has Explained The Cause Of Delay That Due To An Oversight Of The Counsel Of The Assessee, Necessary Steps For Filing

For Appellant: None (Adjournment application)For Respondent: Shri Amit Nigam, D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 194CSection 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 40Section 43B

condoned. 5. None has appeared on behalf of the assessee when this appeal was called for hearing, however, an application for adjournment has been filed by the Authorised Representative of the assessee, which is considered and rejected, as the ground for seeking adjournment is very vague. Further, the issue raised by the assessee in the appeal regarding the addition made

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

condone the delay since the same got occasioned on account of bonafide reasons beyond the control of the assessee and that there is no malafide in not preferring the appeal within time. 6. BECAUSE, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT (A), sustaining the order of ITO (TDS

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

condone the delay since the same got occasioned on account of bonafide reasons beyond the control of the assessee and that there is no malafide in not preferring the appeal within time. 6. BECAUSE, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT (A), sustaining the order of ITO (TDS

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

condone the delay since the same got occasioned on account of bonafide reasons beyond the control of the assessee and that there is no malafide in not preferring the appeal within time. 6. BECAUSE, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT (A), sustaining the order of ITO (TDS

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

condone the delay since the same got occasioned on account of bonafide reasons beyond the control of the assessee and that there is no malafide in not preferring the appeal within time. 6. BECAUSE, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT (A), sustaining the order of ITO (TDS