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.

10 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 208clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai122Karnataka100Mumbai95Chandigarh62Ahmedabad55Kolkata54Delhi44Bangalore38Jaipur36Hyderabad24Pune22Surat15Indore14Cuttack11Rajkot10Lucknow8Cochin8Nagpur7Amritsar5Raipur4SC4Patna3Guwahati3Visakhapatnam2Calcutta2Jabalpur2Agra2Orissa1Jodhpur1Rajasthan1Dehradun1Andhra Pradesh1Allahabad1Telangana1Panaji1

Key Topics

Section 206C(7)12Section 206C(6)12TDS7Section 2505Section 234E5Section 206C5Section 2713Section 271(1)(c)3Section 69

APEX IRRIGATION,RAJKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1)(1),RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal find by the assessee, is allowed

ITA 390/RJT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot24 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Shri Brijesh Parekh, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

section 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Apex Irrigation 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: 1. The Ld. AO erred in law and on facts in making an addition of Rs.4,97,182/- being the duty draw back, pertaining to AY 2018-19 offer to tax in the subsequent year when

3
Penalty3
Addition to Income3
Limitation/Time-bar3

CHIMANLAL BHUTALAL SAGAR,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

ITA 126/RJT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 126/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (208-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Chimanlal Bhutalal Sagar Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income C/.O Ca Himansu Gandhi, 10Th Floor, D Tax (International Taxation)-1, Wing, Trade World Building, Kamala Room N.312, Ito, Amruta Mills Compaund, Lower Parle – 400013 Building, Nr. Girnar Cinema, M. G. Road, Gujarat – 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Fdmps3665D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Himansu Gandhi, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/06/2025

For Appellant: Shri Himansu Gandhi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 144CSection 147Section 234ASection 250Section 271ASection 69

208-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Chimanlal Bhutalal Sagar Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income C/.o CA Himansu Gandhi, 10th Floor, D Tax (International Taxation)-1, wing, Trade World building, Kamala Room N.312, ITO, Amruta Mills Compaund, Lower Parle – 400013 Building, Nr. Girnar Cinema, M. G. Road, Gujarat – 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: FDMPS3665D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Himansu Gandhi

ANUP A. SHAH,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 106/RJT/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Mar 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 106/Rjt/2017 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Asstt. Years: 2005-2006 वष"

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agrawal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A

condone the delay in filing of appeal for 30 days and proceed to adjudicate the issue on merit. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The grounds raised in this appeal are without prejudice to one another. 2. The Learned CIT(A)-2 erred in law and on facts in confirming the penalty u/s.271

M/S. FRIENDS SALT WORKS & ALIED INDUSTRIES,,GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE , RAJKOT

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for assessment year

ITA 49/RJT/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Thacker, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. D.R
Section 194CSection 194JSection 201(1)Section 250

delay is hereby being condoned. 5. The brief facts of the case are that the survey under section 133A of the Act was carried out at the office premises of the assessee on 28-11-2014 for verification of TDS compliance. The assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of manufacturing of salt, providing liquid storage tank

M/S. FRIENDS SALT WORKS & ALIED INDUSTRIES,,GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE , RAJKOT

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for assessment year

ITA 50/RJT/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Thacker, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. D.R
Section 194CSection 194JSection 201(1)Section 250

delay is hereby being condoned. 5. The brief facts of the case are that the survey under section 133A of the Act was carried out at the office premises of the assessee on 28-11-2014 for verification of TDS compliance. The assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of manufacturing of salt, providing liquid storage tank

SHRI BABULAL MIYARAM GADRI,JAMNAGAR vs. THE ITO, TDS-3,, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the matter is being restored to the file of the Ld

ITA 53/RJT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ranjan, Sr. DR
Section 206CSection 206C(6)Section 206C(7)

condoned by following the decision of this court in the case of CIT v. A.N. Arunachalam [1994] 208 ITR 481/75 Taxman 529 (Mad.). Therefore, we do not find any scope to entertain the said question." 10. In the case of CIT (TDS) v. Siyaram Metal Udyog (P.) Ltd. [2016] 71 taxmann.com 204/240 Taxman 578 (Guj.), the AO made addition

SHRI BABULAL MIYARAM GADRI,JAMNAGAR vs. THE ITO, TDS-3,, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the matter is being restored to the file of the Ld

ITA 54/RJT/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ranjan, Sr. DR
Section 206CSection 206C(6)Section 206C(7)

condoned by following the decision of this court in the case of CIT v. A.N. Arunachalam [1994] 208 ITR 481/75 Taxman 529 (Mad.). Therefore, we do not find any scope to entertain the said question." 10. In the case of CIT (TDS) v. Siyaram Metal Udyog (P.) Ltd. [2016] 71 taxmann.com 204/240 Taxman 578 (Guj.), the AO made addition

SHRI BABULAL MIYARAM GADRI,JAMNAGAR vs. THE ITO, TDS-3,, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the matter is being restored to the file of the Ld

ITA 52/RJT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ranjan, Sr. DR
Section 206CSection 206C(6)Section 206C(7)

condoned by following the decision of this court in the case of CIT v. A.N. Arunachalam [1994] 208 ITR 481/75 Taxman 529 (Mad.). Therefore, we do not find any scope to entertain the said question." 10. In the case of CIT (TDS) v. Siyaram Metal Udyog (P.) Ltd. [2016] 71 taxmann.com 204/240 Taxman 578 (Guj.), the AO made addition

SHRI BABULAL MIYARAM GADRI,JAMNAGAR vs. THE ITO, TDS-3,, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the matter is being restored to the file of the Ld

ITA 51/RJT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ranjan, Sr. DR
Section 206CSection 206C(6)Section 206C(7)

condoned by following the decision of this court in the case of CIT v. A.N. Arunachalam [1994] 208 ITR 481/75 Taxman 529 (Mad.). Therefore, we do not find any scope to entertain the said question." 10. In the case of CIT (TDS) v. Siyaram Metal Udyog (P.) Ltd. [2016] 71 taxmann.com 204/240 Taxman 578 (Guj.), the AO made addition

VIMALBHAI MOHANBHAI NARIYA PROP. S.M. CORPORATION,,JAMNAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-3, , JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, for statistical purpose/

ITA 359/RJT/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. & Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 359/Rjt/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing)

For Appellant: Shri V. P. Sutaria, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 206Section 206CSection 206C(1)Section 234ESection 234eSection 260CSection 44A

condoned by following in decision of this court in the case of CIT Vs. A.N. Arunachalam [1994] 208 ITR 481/75 Taxman 529 (Mad.). Therefore, we do not find any scope to entertain the said question. iii. That the assessee is not liable to collect TCS from Manufacturer and only the details of declaration are to be included in the Return