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.

5 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 246A(1)(q)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi93Chennai27Mumbai5Lucknow4Visakhapatnam3Bangalore2Indore2Jodhpur1Varanasi1Cuttack1

Key Topics

Section 200A10Section 234E9Section 2637Section 270A6Section 253(1)(a)3Section 246A2Section 143(3)2Section 246A(1)(q)2TDS2

CROMPTON GREAVES LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT -6, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company in ITA no

ITA 2836/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kochar"ी शैल" कुमार यादव, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी "ी रिमत कोचर, लेखाकार सद"य के सम" । आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1994/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2836/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S Crompton Greaves बनाम/ Cit – 6,Mumbai, Ltd.,6Th Floor, C.G. House, 5Th Floor, V. Dr. A.B. Road, Worli, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 030. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacc3840K .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pradeep N. Kapasi Revenue By : Shri C.W. Angolkar सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 29-10-2015 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01-02-2016

For Respondent: Shri C.W. Angolkar
Section 143(3)Section 263

delay was computed in a reasonable and prudent manner based on past experience of the company and the company has a policy to write back the unused amounts and offer the same for taxation on expiry of the relevant period for claim of damages and there is no leakage of revenue as the company is being taxed at a flat

LAWMEN CONCEPTS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CPC-TDS , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated in the order

ITA 5140/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Michael Jerald-Sr.DR
Section 200ASection 234E

delay was to be condoned, however, upon payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- per appeal. The order, in this regard, was passed by the bench on the same day and the assessee was directed to pay the cost in the specified manner. 2.2 Accordingly, as directed in the order, the appeals were posted for final hearing today. The Ld. Authorized

NATIONAL LAMINATE CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. CPC (TDS), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 4902/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik – Ld. DR
Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234E

Q-4. The said fees were levied on account of late filing of quarterly electronic TDS returns, as provided u/s 200(3) of the Act read with Rule 31A of the Income Tax Rules. 2.1 The assessee challenged the levy of fees u/s 234E before Ld. CIT(A) vide impugned order dated 04/06/2018, inter-alia, by submitting 3 Assessment Year

DESMOND SAVIO THEODORE FERNANDES,MUMBAI vs. ITO FACELESS ASSESSMENT, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed as non-maintainable

ITA 2072/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2022AY 2017-18
Section 246ASection 246A(1)(q)Section 253(1)(a)Section 270A

246A(1)(q) must make way for the specific provisions of the Section 253(1)(a). The order sought to be impugned in this appeal is passed by the Assessing Officer, and, therefore, this exception does not come into play. Learned counsel’s understanding of the legal position, even if bonafide- particularly considering his young age and limited experience

MRS. SULAKSHANA NANCHE,MUMBAI vs. ITO 33 (3)(5), MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed for statistical purpose in the terms aforesaid

ITA 457/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 457/मुं/2020 ("न.व. 2014-15) Mrs. Sulakshana Nanche, Bunglow No.98, Madhushri, Charkop, Sector 1, Kandvivali West, Mumbai 400 067 Pan: Acupn-3354-Q ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Income Tax Officer – 33(3)(5), Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai 400 051. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Ms. Chaitee Londhe ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Sanjay J. Sethi सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 28/06/2021 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 26/07/2021 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Ms. Chaitee LondheFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay J. Sethi
Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 50C(2)

1, Kandvivali West, Mumbai 400 067 PAN: ACUPN-3354-Q ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Income Tax Officer – 33(3)(5), Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai 400 051. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant by : Ms. Chaitee Londhe ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent by : Shri Sanjay J. Sethi सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date of hearing : 28/06/2021 घोषणा