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.

442 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 194Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Nagpur100Chandigarh81Cochin37Chennai32Mumbai25Pune23Bangalore22Jaipur17Delhi16Hyderabad16Kolkata13Visakhapatnam8Cuttack8Raipur8Ahmedabad8Surat6Rajkot5Jodhpur4SC3Panaji3Lucknow3Varanasi2Indore1Karnataka1

Key Topics

Section 194A106Section 201(1)82TDS72Condonation of Delay63Section 20155Deduction53Section 25046Limitation/Time-bar34Section 14731Section 148

SIRI SANJEEVINI PATTINA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI NIYAMAT ,SIRWAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , RAICHUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1386/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Neha Sahay, JCIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 5Section 801

condone the delay in filing the present appeal for A.Y. 2020-21 before this Tribunal. 4. On merits of the case, the Ld.AR submitted that for A.Y. 2017- 18, the only issue disallowed by NFAC is regarding the Page 17 ITA Nos. 1386 & 1387/Bang/2024 commission paid to pigmy agents for not withholding the taxes on the interest paid

Showing 1–20 of 442 · Page 1 of 23

...
29
Addition to Income25
Section 4022

SIRI SANJEEVINI PATTINA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI NIYAMAT,SIRWAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, RAICHUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1387/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Neha Sahay, JCIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 5Section 801

condone the delay in filing the present appeal for A.Y. 2020-21 before this Tribunal. 4. On merits of the case, the Ld.AR submitted that for A.Y. 2017- 18, the only issue disallowed by NFAC is regarding the Page 17 ITA Nos. 1386 & 1387/Bang/2024 commission paid to pigmy agents for not withholding the taxes on the interest paid

THE H.P.STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,SIRMOUR vs. ITO(TDS), SOLAN

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 127/CHANDI/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assesseee Is Aggrieved By The Common Order Bearing Number Itba/Apl/M/250/2019- 20/1021304437(1) Dt. 25/11/2019 Of Cit(A) Shimla, H.P. Passed U/S 250 Of The Act Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The “Impugned Order”. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2016-17 & The Corresponding Previous Year Period Is From 01/04/2015 To 31/03/2016. 2. At The Outset The Registry Has Pointed Out That The Above Appeals Are Barred By Limitation By 02 Days.

For Appellant: Shri Sachin Doger, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 194ASection 194A(3)(i)Section 194A(3)(v)Section 19iSection 201Section 201(1)Section 246ASection 250Section 253

condone the delay for which sufficient cause is shown, and admit all the appeals for adjudication. Since the issues involved in all the above appeals are common and were heard together so they are being disposed off by this consolidated order. With the consent of both the parties we take up Appeal No. 125/Chd/2020

NIKITA KINGRANI, DURG,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-TDS WARD, BHILAI, DURG

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in terms of our observations above

ITA 231/RPR/2023[2016-17 (First Quarter)]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur11 Sept 2023

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 200ASection 234ESection 249(3)

delay occurred in filing the appeals before the CIT(Appeals). The relevant contents of the condonation application are culled out as follows: “1. The Appellant derives income from hosiery business and was required to make TDS as per provision of section 194A

NIKITA KINGRANI, DURG,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-TDS WARD, BHILAI, DURG

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in terms of our observations above

ITA 230/RPR/2023[2015-16 (Second Quarter)]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur11 Sept 2023

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 200ASection 234ESection 249(3)

delay occurred in filing the appeals before the CIT(Appeals). The relevant contents of the condonation application are culled out as follows: “1. The Appellant derives income from hosiery business and was required to make TDS as per provision of section 194A

NIKITA KINGRANI, DURG,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-TDS WARD, BHILAI, DURG

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in terms of our observations above

ITA 229/RPR/2023[2015-16 (First Quarter)]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur11 Sept 2023

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 200ASection 234ESection 249(3)

delay occurred in filing the appeals before the CIT(Appeals). The relevant contents of the condonation application are culled out as follows: “1. The Appellant derives income from hosiery business and was required to make TDS as per provision of section 194A

NIKITA KINGRANI, DURG,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-TDS WARD, BHILAI, DURG

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in terms of our observations above

ITA 226/RPR/2023[2013-14 (Second Quarter)]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur11 Sept 2023

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 200ASection 234ESection 249(3)

delay occurred in filing the appeals before the CIT(Appeals). The relevant contents of the condonation application are culled out as follows: “1. The Appellant derives income from hosiery business and was required to make TDS as per provision of section 194A

NIKITA KINGRANI, DURG,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-TDS WARD, BHILAI, DURG

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in terms of our observations above

ITA 227/RPR/2023[2013-14 (Third Quarter)]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur11 Sept 2023

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 200ASection 234ESection 249(3)

delay occurred in filing the appeals before the CIT(Appeals). The relevant contents of the condonation application are culled out as follows: “1. The Appellant derives income from hosiery business and was required to make TDS as per provision of section 194A

NIKITA KINGRANI, DURG,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-TDS WARD, BHILAI, DURG

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in terms of our observations above

ITA 228/RPR/2023[2013-14 (Fourth Quarter)]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur11 Sept 2023

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 200ASection 234ESection 249(3)

delay occurred in filing the appeals before the CIT(Appeals). The relevant contents of the condonation application are culled out as follows: “1. The Appellant derives income from hosiery business and was required to make TDS as per provision of section 194A

THE H.P.STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,SIRMOUR vs. ITO(TDS), SOLAN

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the Assessee are\r\nallowed

ITA 126/CHANDI/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Feb 2025AY 2017-18
Section 194ASection 194A(3)Section 194A(3)(v)Section 19iSection 201Section 201(1)Section 246ASection 250Section 253

condone the delay for which sufficient\r\ncause is shown, and admit all the appeals for adjudication.\r\nSince the issues involved in all the above appeals are common and were\r\nheard together so they are being disposed off by this consolidated order.\r\nWith the consent of both the parties we take up Appeal No.\r\n125/Chd/2020

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE MAHARAJA CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals of the revenue as well as the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 453/VIZ/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.453/Viz/2019 & 454/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2014-15 & 2015-16) Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. The Maharaja Co-Operative Circle-1(1) Urban Bank Ltd Visakhapatnam D.No.49-9-14, Dwaraka Nagar Ganta Arcade Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aaaat4196K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection No. 146/Viz/2019 & 147/Viz/2019 Arising Out Of I.T.A.No.453/Viz/2019 & 454/Viz/2019) (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2014-15 & 2015-16 Respectively) The Maharaja Co-Operative Urban Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of Bank Ltd Income Tax D.No.49-9-14, Dwaraka Nagar Circle-1(1) Ganta Arcade Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aaaat4196K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit, Dr निर्धाऩरती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 09.12.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.12.2019

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT, DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 40

condoning the delay. Hence, the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed in limine. 2. These appeals are filed by the revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]-1, Visakhapatnam in I.T.A. No.10380/2016-17/AC,C-1(1),VSP/2018-19 and 10151/2017- 18/AC,C-1(1),VSP/2018-19 dated 29.01.2019 for the Assessment Year

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE MAHARAJA CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals of the revenue as well as the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 454/VIZ/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Dec 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.453/Viz/2019 & 454/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2014-15 & 2015-16) Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. The Maharaja Co-Operative Circle-1(1) Urban Bank Ltd Visakhapatnam D.No.49-9-14, Dwaraka Nagar Ganta Arcade Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aaaat4196K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection No. 146/Viz/2019 & 147/Viz/2019 Arising Out Of I.T.A.No.453/Viz/2019 & 454/Viz/2019) (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2014-15 & 2015-16 Respectively) The Maharaja Co-Operative Urban Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of Bank Ltd Income Tax D.No.49-9-14, Dwaraka Nagar Circle-1(1) Ganta Arcade Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aaaat4196K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit, Dr निर्धाऩरती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 09.12.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.12.2019

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT, DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 40

condoning the delay. Hence, the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed in limine. 2. These appeals are filed by the revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]-1, Visakhapatnam in I.T.A. No.10380/2016-17/AC,C-1(1),VSP/2018-19 and 10151/2017- 18/AC,C-1(1),VSP/2018-19 dated 29.01.2019 for the Assessment Year

THE H.P.STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,SIRMOUR vs. ITO(TDS), SOLAN

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the Assessee are\nallowed

ITA 125/CHANDI/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Feb 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: \nShri Sachin Doger, C.AFor Respondent: \nShri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 194ASection 194A(3)Section 194A(3)(v)Section 19iSection 201Section 201(1)Section 246ASection 250Section 253

condone the delay for which sufficient\ncause is shown, and admit all the appeals for adjudication.\nSince the issues involved in all the above appeals are common and were\nheard together so they are being disposed off by this consolidated order.\nWith the consent of both the parties we take up Appeal No.\n125/Chd/2020

THE GOVERNMENT SERVANTS CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(2), VADODARA

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

ITA 442/AHD/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 442/Ahd/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-13 The Government Servants Co-Op. Credit I.T.O., Society Ltd., Vs. Ward-3(1)(2), Hindi Bhavan, Vadodara. Sanstha Vasahat Raopura, Vadodara-390001. Pan: Aabat5146J

For Appellant: Shri Amrin Pathan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr..D.R
Section 5Section 56Section 80P(2)

condone the delay of 1226 days in filing the appeal and proceed to hear the appeal on merit for the adjudication. Now we proceed to adjudicate the matter on merit: 7. The only issue raised by assessee in this appeal is that learned CIT-A erred in confirming the order of the AO by sustaining the addition

THE KRISHNA DISTRICT MILK PRODUCERS MUTUALLY AIDED CO-OPERATIVE UNION LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, , VIJAYAWADA

ITA 43/VIZ/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam22 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, FCAFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Sonawal, CIT DR
Section 263

condonation of delay stands dismissed. 6. Resultantly, the appeal i.e. ITA No.43/VIZ/2020 of the Assessee stands dismissed in limine. 7. In this appeal, the Assessee has challenged the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) against the affirmation of additions qua grants-in-aid received by the Assessee society as capital in nature and disallowance of deduction claimed u/sec

THE KRISHNA DISTRICT MILK PRODUCERS MUTUALLY AIDED CO-OPERATIVE UNION LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), , VIJAYAWADA

ITA 42/VIZ/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam22 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, FCAFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Sonawal, CIT DR
Section 263

condonation of delay stands dismissed. 6. Resultantly, the appeal i.e. ITA No.43/VIZ/2020 of the Assessee stands dismissed in limine. 7. In this appeal, the Assessee has challenged the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) against the affirmation of additions qua grants-in-aid received by the Assessee society as capital in nature and disallowance of deduction claimed u/sec

M/S. THE BHAVASARA KSHATRIYA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,MYSURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), MYSURU

ITA 981/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roym/S Bhavasara Kshatriya Co- Operative Society Ltd., 279, Benkinawab Street, Mandi Mohalla, Mysureu-570 001. Pan – Aadat 2458 F Appelant Assessee By : Shri V Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel For Dept. Date Of Hearing : 03.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.01.2024

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Dept
Section 143Section 234Section 250Section 80P

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 8. On merit, the ld.AR submitted that the assessee has claimed deduction, which is as follows:- 1) Under Section 80P(2)(a) Rs.14,76,803 2) Under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) - Rs.13,98,572/- Total Rs.28,75,375/- 9. The ld.AO denied the above exemption claimed by the assessee

SUBHASH CHAND JAIN ,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 112/JODH/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur28 Jan 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 250

condone the delay of 487 days in filing the present appeal and admit the same for hearing. 7. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. That under the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the NP rate of 10.16% subject to Depreciation and Interest to third

SUBHASH CHAND JAIN ,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 111/JODH/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur28 Jan 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 250

condone the delay of 487 days in filing the present appeal and admit the same for hearing. 7. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. That under the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the NP rate of 10.16% subject to Depreciation and Interest to third

BANK OF INDIA,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (TDS), CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR

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

ITA 277/NAG/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Aug 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryassessment Year : 2012-13 Bank Of India, Dcit (Tds), Hingna Branch, Nagpur Zonal Office, Vs. Circle-1, 3Rd Floor, Csd Dept., Kingsways, Nagpur Nagpur – 440 001, Maharashtra Pan : Aaacb0472C Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Pratik Sadrani &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Agrawal
Section 194ASection 200Section 201Section 201(1)Section 201(3)Section 201(3)(i)Section 250

194A on interest paid/credited to its customers along with interest thereon and also non-condonation of delay by the ld. CIT(A) in presenting the appeal before him. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is a Nationalised Bank engaged in the banking business. Section