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.

3 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 253(6)(c)clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai187Mumbai181Karnataka139Delhi132Ahmedabad119Kolkata113Jaipur76Bangalore67Indore61Lucknow55Surat53Pune45Chandigarh40Raipur35Panaji27Cuttack26Hyderabad25Allahabad24Cochin18Rajkot16Varanasi15Jodhpur12Patna12Guwahati10Nagpur9Ranchi9Amritsar8Jabalpur7SC4Visakhapatnam3Agra3Telangana2Andhra Pradesh1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 143(1)4Section 194I3Section 201(1)3Section 139(1)3Section 36(1)(va)2Deduction2

THE NARSAPUR BRAHMANA SAMAKHYA,NARSAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, PALKOL

In the result, the appeal of the appellant society is dismissed in- limine

ITA 738/VIZ/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: The Ld.Cit(A). The Reasons Given For Delayed Filing Of Appeal Before The Ld.Cit(A) Are As Follows :

Section 143(1)Section 253(5)

c) There is no malafide intention or deliberate lapse on the part of the appellant. In view of the same, the appellant has requested before the Ld.CIT(A) that the delay may be condoned and adjudicate the matter on merits. 3. After considering the submissions of the appellant society, the Ld.CIT(A) held that the condonation of delay in filing

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1) (TDS), VIJAYAWADA vs. M/S SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF A.P. LTD., TIRUPATHI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 452/VIZ/2010[2008-09]Status: Disposed
ITAT Visakhapatnam
04 Oct 2019
AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.452-454/Viz/2010 (निर्धारण वर्ा/A.Ys : 2008-09 To 2010-11 Respectively) Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Southern Power Circle-3(1) (Tds) Distribution Company Of Vijayawada A.P.Limited Behind Srinivasa Kalyana Mandapam Kesavavayana Gunta Tirupati [Pan : Hydso8188F] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1217/H/2010,517/Viz/2019 &518/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/A.Ys : 2008-09 To 2010-11 Respectively) M/S Southern Power Distribution Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of Company Of A.P.Limited Income Tax Behind Srinivasa Kalyana Mandapam Circle-3(1) (Tds) Kesavavayana Gunta Vijayawada Tirupati [Pan : Hydso8188F] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr निर्धाऩरती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri C.P.Rama Swami, Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 04.09.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.10.2019

For Appellant: Shri C.P.Rama Swami, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT DR
Section 133ASection 194ISection 201(1)

c) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and observed that AP Transco is required to provide non-discriminatory open access to its transmission system for use of licensed customers on payment of transmission charges. Thus, observed that transmission charges are authorized under the Act only for use of transmission system owned by the transmission licensee. The AO observed from

THE ETIKOPPAKA COOP AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 260/VIZ/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru R L Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Balakrishnan, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Pandi, Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)

6. In the present case, the assessee had remitted the employees contribution beyond the due date for payment, but within the due date for filing the return of income. Hence, following the above said decisions, we find no reason to differ with the findings of the Tribunal. Accordingly, we find no question of law much less any substantial question