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.

654 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 10(25)(ii)clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai654Mumbai549Delhi515Kolkata382Pune322Hyderabad318Bangalore281Jaipur213Ahmedabad209Karnataka171Chandigarh132Raipur120Nagpur109Amritsar89Surat88Indore71Panaji67Visakhapatnam55Cuttack52Cochin51Lucknow44Rajkot39Calcutta37SC33Guwahati15Patna15Telangana14Varanasi12Jodhpur10Agra8Allahabad8Kerala5Rajasthan4Orissa3Dehradun2Jabalpur2Himachal Pradesh2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2Andhra Pradesh1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1DIPAK MISRA R.K. AGRAWAL PRAFULLA C. PANT1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)54Addition to Income38Section 153A36Section 14832Disallowance28Section 14725Limitation/Time-bar19Section 234E18Section 40A(3)

HEENA G JAIN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT/DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2058/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon’Ble S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.2058/Chny/2025 िनधा7रण वष7 /Assessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Shrey Kumar M. Jain, C.A GHFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)

25. We have already extracted the reasons as mentioned in the “better affidavit” sworn by Mr. Aparajeet Pattanayak, SSRM, Air Mail Sorting Division, New Delhi. It is relevant to note that in the said affidavit, the Department has itself mentioned and is aware of the date of the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court in Office

HITECH FLYASH INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,TUTICORIN vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, TIRUNELVELI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Showing 1–20 of 654 · Page 1 of 33

...
18
Condonation of Delay18
Section 143(1)12
Section 143(1)(a)12
ITA 3105/CHNY/2025[2016-2017]Status: Disposed
ITAT Chennai
18 Dec 2025
AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.3105/Chny/2025 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 V. Hitech Fly Ash India Pvt Ltd., Acit, 2/101-5, Thiruchendur Road, Income Tax Office Muthiahpuram Tuticorn, Tirunelveli, Nellai City Centre Tuticorin-628005, Tiruchendup. Road Tamil Nadu Rahmath Nagar, Tirunelveli-627011 [Pan: Aabch 7093 J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (" यथ"/Respondent)

25. We have already extracted the reasons as mentioned in the “better affidavit” sworn by Mr. Aparajeet Pattanayak, SSRM, Air Mail Sorting Division, New Delhi. It is relevant to note that in the said affidavit, the Department has itself mentioned and is aware of the date of the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court in Office

S. S. RANGASAMY RAJA,RAJAPALAYAM vs. ITO, TDS WARD,, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1743/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon’Ble Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.1743 & 1744/Chny/2025 िनधा>रण वष> /Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 200A

25. We have already extracted the reasons as mentioned in the “better affidavit” sworn by Mr. Aparajeet Pattanayak, SSRM, Air Mail Sorting Division, New Delhi. It is relevant to note that in the said affidavit, the Department has itself mentioned and is aware of the date of the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court in Office

S.S. RANGASAMY RAJA,RAJAPALAYAM vs. ITO, TDS WARD,, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1744/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon’Ble Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.1743 & 1744/Chny/2025 िनधा>रण वष> /Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 200A

25. We have already extracted the reasons as mentioned in the “better affidavit” sworn by Mr. Aparajeet Pattanayak, SSRM, Air Mail Sorting Division, New Delhi. It is relevant to note that in the said affidavit, the Department has itself mentioned and is aware of the date of the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court in Office

RAJALAKSHMI VETTRIVEL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1108/CHNY/2017[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Aug 2017AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Mr.B.Sagadevan, JICIT, D.R
Section 144Section 153CSection 234A

10 current legal jargon. Thus, “Wednesbury’s principle” is now a common and convenient label indicating special standard of reasonableness or special standard of unreasonableness, which has now become a criterion for judicial review of administrative discretion. The test is fundamentally based on rationality! irrationality. Virtually, the rationality in the positive sense or irrationality in the negative sense are tested

RAJALAKSHMI VETTRIVEL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1111/CHNY/2017[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Aug 2017AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Mr.B.Sagadevan, JICIT, D.R
Section 144Section 153CSection 234A

10 current legal jargon. Thus, “Wednesbury’s principle” is now a common and convenient label indicating special standard of reasonableness or special standard of unreasonableness, which has now become a criterion for judicial review of administrative discretion. The test is fundamentally based on rationality! irrationality. Virtually, the rationality in the positive sense or irrationality in the negative sense are tested

RAJALAKSHMI VETTRIVEL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1106/CHNY/2017[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Aug 2017AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Mr.B.Sagadevan, JICIT, D.R
Section 144Section 153CSection 234A

10 current legal jargon. Thus, “Wednesbury’s principle” is now a common and convenient label indicating special standard of reasonableness or special standard of unreasonableness, which has now become a criterion for judicial review of administrative discretion. The test is fundamentally based on rationality! irrationality. Virtually, the rationality in the positive sense or irrationality in the negative sense are tested

RAJALAKSHMI VETTRIVEL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1110/CHNY/2017[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Aug 2017AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Mr.B.Sagadevan, JICIT, D.R
Section 144Section 153CSection 234A

10 current legal jargon. Thus, “Wednesbury’s principle” is now a common and convenient label indicating special standard of reasonableness or special standard of unreasonableness, which has now become a criterion for judicial review of administrative discretion. The test is fundamentally based on rationality! irrationality. Virtually, the rationality in the positive sense or irrationality in the negative sense are tested

RAJALAKSHMI VETTRIVEL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1109/CHNY/2017[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Aug 2017AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Mr.B.Sagadevan, JICIT, D.R
Section 144Section 153CSection 234A

10 current legal jargon. Thus, “Wednesbury’s principle” is now a common and convenient label indicating special standard of reasonableness or special standard of unreasonableness, which has now become a criterion for judicial review of administrative discretion. The test is fundamentally based on rationality! irrationality. Virtually, the rationality in the positive sense or irrationality in the negative sense are tested

RAJALAKSHMI VETTRIVEL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1107/CHNY/2017[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Aug 2017AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Mr.B.Sagadevan, JICIT, D.R
Section 144Section 153CSection 234A

10 current legal jargon. Thus, “Wednesbury’s principle” is now a common and convenient label indicating special standard of reasonableness or special standard of unreasonableness, which has now become a criterion for judicial review of administrative discretion. The test is fundamentally based on rationality! irrationality. Virtually, the rationality in the positive sense or irrationality in the negative sense are tested

PREETI MADHOK,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW -2 (5),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as not

ITA 752/CHNY/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.752/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Mrs.Preeti Madhok, V. The Income Tax Officer, ‘G’ Block, Flat No.1504, Non-Corporate Ward-2(5), Metrozone (Next To Vr Mall), Chennai. No.44, Pillaiyar Koil Street, Anna Nagar, Chennai-600 040. [Pan: Bcopm 7655 J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Dr.S.Palani Kumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(vii)

section 56(2)(vii)(b) are not invocable in the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. For that without prejudice to the above, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax failed to appreciate that no addition can be made in the hands of the appellant since the entire consideration for the property purchased during the impugned assessment year was paid

JAGATHESH,CHENNAI vs. AACIT, NCC-11(1), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1565/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1565/Chny/2025 ननिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jagathesh, Acit, Flat 2A, Block V, Vs. Non- Corporate Circle - 11(1), Rani Meyammai Towers, Chennai. Mrc Nagar, Raja Annamalai Puram, Chennai – 600 028. [Pan:Aclpj-4702-H] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1566/Chny/2025 ननिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jagathesh, Acit, Flat 2A, Block V, Vs. Non- Corporate Circle - 11(1), Rani Meyammai Towers, Chennai. Mrc Nagar, Raja Annamalai Puram, Chennai – 600 028. [Pan:Aclpj-4702-H] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. D. Anand, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri. ARV Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 115BSection 133ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 183Section 197Section 271ASection 69A

10. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred this appeal before us. 11. Before proceeding to adjudicate any issues arising in the present appeal, it is necessary for us to decide whether there was sufficient cause for the delay in presenting the appeal before the ld.CIT(A). The assessee before the ld.CIT(A) has taken

JAGATHESH,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NCC-1(1), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1566/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1565/Chny/2025 ननिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jagathesh, Acit, Flat 2A, Block V, Vs. Non- Corporate Circle - 11(1), Rani Meyammai Towers, Chennai. Mrc Nagar, Raja Annamalai Puram, Chennai – 600 028. [Pan:Aclpj-4702-H] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1566/Chny/2025 ननिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jagathesh, Acit, Flat 2A, Block V, Vs. Non- Corporate Circle - 11(1), Rani Meyammai Towers, Chennai. Mrc Nagar, Raja Annamalai Puram, Chennai – 600 028. [Pan:Aclpj-4702-H] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. D. Anand, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri. ARV Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 115BSection 133ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 183Section 197Section 271ASection 69A

10. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred this appeal before us. 11. Before proceeding to adjudicate any issues arising in the present appeal, it is necessary for us to decide whether there was sufficient cause for the delay in presenting the appeal before the ld.CIT(A). The assessee before the ld.CIT(A) has taken

MADURAI AGRI BUSINESS INCUBATION FORUM ,COIMBATORE vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 875/CHNY/2023[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Mar 2024

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 10Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)Section 80G(5)(iv)

condonation of the delay in filing Form 10AB which is the second stage of liberal interpretation sought and thereafter these trusts are requesting ITAT to direct the CIT(E) to consider the Form 10AB filed belatedly as a valid form which is the third level of liberal interpretation sought by the counsels of the assessee trust. The revenue stated that

PROTECT AND RESCUE ANIMALS IN NEED INITIATIVE (PRANI),CHENNAI vs. CIT, EXEMPTIONS,, CHENNAI

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

ITA 1151/CHNY/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1151/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: - Protect & Rescue Animals In Need Commissioner Of Income Tax Initiative (Prani), (Exemptions), No.10, Door No.5, Bnb Flats, Chennai. 6Th Avenue, Ashok Nagar, Chennai- 600 083. [Pan: Aaftp0832N] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri M.Viswanathan, C.A. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Bipin C.N, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.10.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri M.Viswanathan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)(iii)

condoning the delay in matters concerning 12A registrations. We have noted that while doing so, CBDT had primarily examined the issue of “continuing hardship” to the taxpayers in filing timely applications and thus being deprived of registration on such technical deficiencies. Registrations under section 12A and 80G are closely inter-linked and or rather supplementing their independent objectives. The present

SOCIETY FOR COMMUNITY ORGANISATION AND PEOPLES EDUCATION (SCOPE),TIRUCHIRAPPALLI vs. CIT, EXEMPTIONS,, CHENNAI

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

ITA 1127/CHNY/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1127/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: - Society For Community Organization Commissioner Of Income Tax & Peoples Education (Scope), (Exemptions), No.17, 16Th Cross, Ahmed Colony, Chennai. Ramalinga Nagar, Tiruchirappalli, Tamil Nadu- 620 003. [Pan: Aaets3488C] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri N.Arjun Raj, Advocate, प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Bipin C.N, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.10.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri N.Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)(iii)

condoning the delay in matters concerning 12A registrations. We have noted that while doing so, CBDT had primarily examined the issue of “continuing hardship” to the taxpayers in filing timely applications and thus being deprived of registration on such technical deficiencies. Registrations under section 12A and 80G are closely inter-linked and or rather supplementing their independent objectives. The present

INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE ITI (WOMEN),MADURAI vs. CIT, MADURAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 612/CHNY/2015[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Dec 2015

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. S. Duraisamy, Vice Chairman,ITIFor Respondent: Shri. Koteeswara Rao, IRS, CIT
Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 148Section 154

section 12 AA (1)(b)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 rejecting the application for registration u/s. 12AA of the Act. Both the appeals arise from the issue of rejection of 2. Sec.12AA registration by the Revenue. Before the Tribunal, the assessee has filed two condonation applications for condoning the delay in filing the appeals in ITA Nos.612 & 613/Mds/2015

INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE ITI (WOMEN),MADURAI vs. CIT, MADURAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 613/CHNY/2015[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Dec 2015

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. S. Duraisamy, Vice Chairman,ITIFor Respondent: Shri. Koteeswara Rao, IRS, CIT
Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 148Section 154

section 12 AA (1)(b)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 rejecting the application for registration u/s. 12AA of the Act. Both the appeals arise from the issue of rejection of 2. Sec.12AA registration by the Revenue. Before the Tribunal, the assessee has filed two condonation applications for condoning the delay in filing the appeals in ITA Nos.612 & 613/Mds/2015

MENAKURU SUKUMAR REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT(A), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 991/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. P. Murali Mohana Rao, CAFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 251(2)Section 69A

condone delay in filing of appeals and admit the appeals filed by the revenue for adjudication. 3. The brief facts of the relevant assessment years are as under: 3.1 A.Y. 2015-16: The brief facts emanating from the records are that the assessee is a HUF, engaged in the business of Renting out properties and also received interest income

MENAKURU SUKUMAR REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT(A), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 992/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. P. Murali Mohana Rao, CAFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 251(2)Section 69A

condone delay in filing of appeals and admit the appeals filed by the revenue for adjudication. 3. The brief facts of the relevant assessment years are as under: 3.1 A.Y. 2015-16: The brief facts emanating from the records are that the assessee is a HUF, engaged in the business of Renting out properties and also received interest income