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 192clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai231Delhi227Kolkata153Mumbai132Karnataka127Nagpur84Pune80Bangalore75Ahmedabad72Visakhapatnam57Hyderabad57Jaipur54Amritsar49Chandigarh45Calcutta37Cochin24Lucknow20Indore17Patna15Cuttack11Surat10Agra10Jodhpur10Raipur8Varanasi6Allahabad5Guwahati5Rajkot5Ranchi5SC4Andhra Pradesh1Dehradun1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 234E26Section 200A20Section 1544Section 2744TDS4Condonation of Delay4Rectification u/s 1544Section 271(1)(c)2Limitation/Time-bar

HARDEEP SINGH,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ITO(TDS)J, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 353/RAN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi21 May 2019AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Pawan Periwal, CA(AR)For Respondent: Shri P.K.Mondal, ACIT(DR)
Section 154Section 200ASection 234E

condone the delay of 91 days in filing both the appeals and both the appeals are heard on merits. 3. The sole issue involved in both the appeals of the assessee is that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of AO levying late fee u/s.234E of the Act for delay in filing quarterly statement. 4. Brief facts

HARDEEP SINGH,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ITO(TDS)J, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

2
ITA 354/RAN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi21 May 2019AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Pawan Periwal, CA(AR)For Respondent: Shri P.K.Mondal, ACIT(DR)
Section 154Section 200ASection 234E

condone the delay of 91 days in filing both the appeals and both the appeals are heard on merits. 3. The sole issue involved in both the appeals of the assessee is that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of AO levying late fee u/s.234E of the Act for delay in filing quarterly statement. 4. Brief facts

M/S VIKAS SAMITIES,JAMSHEDPUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION, RANCHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 355/RAN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi30 Oct 2019AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Pawan Periwal, CA(AR)For Respondent: Shri P.K.Mondal, ACIT(DR)
Section 154Section 200ASection 234E

condonation of delay to which the ld. DR did not object to appeals are heard on merits. 3. The sole issue involved in both the appeals of the assessee is that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of AO levying late fee u/s.234E of the Act for delay in filing quarterly statement. 4. Brief facts of the case

M/S VIKAS SAMITIES,JAMSHEDPUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION, RANCHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 356/RAN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi30 Oct 2019AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Pawan Periwal, CA(AR)For Respondent: Shri P.K.Mondal, ACIT(DR)
Section 154Section 200ASection 234E

condonation of delay to which the ld. DR did not object to appeals are heard on merits. 3. The sole issue involved in both the appeals of the assessee is that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of AO levying late fee u/s.234E of the Act for delay in filing quarterly statement. 4. Brief facts of the case

M/S RAM SWARUP RUNGTA & BROTHERS,RANCHI vs. DCIT, RANCHI

In the result, the appeals of assessee in ITA

ITA 118/RAN/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi01 Mar 2018AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Mallik, JCIT, ld. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

192 (SC). We are in agreement with the reasoning of the Co-ordinate Bench in its order dt: 01-12-2017 in the case of Jeetmal Choraria and the same is reproduced herein below for ready reference: “7. The learned DR submitted that the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Dr.Syamal Baran Mondal