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.

999 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 21clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,163Mumbai1,025Chennai999Kolkata714Pune636Bangalore489Hyderabad388Jaipur360Ahmedabad354Patna206Chandigarh203Karnataka174Nagpur169Surat151Visakhapatnam143Raipur141Amritsar119Indore116Lucknow97Panaji74Rajkot61Cuttack61Cochin61Calcutta54SC39Guwahati35Agra28Telangana25Jodhpur19Dehradun15Allahabad14Jabalpur14Varanasi13Orissa7Rajasthan6Himachal Pradesh4Andhra Pradesh3Ranchi3A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2Kerala1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Punjab & Haryana1DIPAK MISRA R.K. AGRAWAL PRAFULLA C. PANT1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Addition to Income42Section 143(3)37Condonation of Delay30Section 153C28Disallowance28Section 234E27Limitation/Time-bar27Section 14A26Section 153A

MANSI FINANCE CHENNAI LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. THE ACIT, CC-4(1), CHENNAI

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

ITA 108/CHNY/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 108 & 109/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Prithvi Chopda, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

21 years, 1275 days cannot be considered to be inordinate or excessive. 10. The Madras High Court in the case of Sreenivas Charitable Trust v. DCIT 280 ITR 357 (Mad) held that no hard and fast rule can be laid down in the matter of condonation of delay and the Court should adopt a pragmatic approach and the Court should

MANSI FINANCE CHENNAI LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. THE ACIT, CC 4(1), CHENNAI

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

ITA 109/CHNY/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai

Showing 1–20 of 999 · Page 1 of 50

...
24
Section 14723
Section 14822
Deduction19
06 Jul 2022
AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 108 & 109/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Prithvi Chopda, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

21 years, 1275 days cannot be considered to be inordinate or excessive. 10. The Madras High Court in the case of Sreenivas Charitable Trust v. DCIT 280 ITR 357 (Mad) held that no hard and fast rule can be laid down in the matter of condonation of delay and the Court should adopt a pragmatic approach and the Court should

TAMILNADU GRAMA BANK ULUNDURPET,- vs. DCIT,CPC,TDS, GAZIABAD

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA 1036/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Oct 2023AY 2014-15
Section 200ASection 234E

section 5 of the Limitation Act, the Court should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas in the former case the consideration of prejudice to the other side will be a relevant factor so the case calls

TAMILNADU GRAMA BANK, SHOOLAGIRI,SALEM vs. 0DCIT,CPC,TDS, GAZIABAD

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA 1014/CHNY/2023[2014-15AAHAT7854K]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Oct 2023
Section 200ASection 234E

section 5 of the Limitation Act, the Court should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas in the former case the consideration of prejudice to the other side will be a relevant factor so the case calls

TAMILNADU GRAMA BANK OMANDUR,SALEM vs. DCIT,CPC,TDS, GHAZIABAD

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA 1019/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Oct 2023AY 2013-14
Section 200ASection 234E

section 5 of the Limitation Act, the Court should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas in the former case the consideration of prejudice to the other side will be a relevant factor so the case calls

TAMILNADU GRAMA BANK, SHOOLAGIRI,SALEM vs. DCIT,CPC,TDS, GHAZIABAD

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA 1016/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Oct 2023AY 2014-15
Section 200ASection 234E

section 5 of the Limitation Act, the Court should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas in the former case the consideration of prejudice to the other side will be a relevant factor so the case calls

TAMILNADU GRAMA BANK SHOOLAGIRI,SALEM vs. DCIT,CPC,TDS, GAZIABAD

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA 1010/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Oct 2023AY 2013-14
Section 200ASection 234E

section 5 of the Limitation Act, the Court should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas in the former case the consideration of prejudice to the other side will be a relevant factor so the case calls

TAMILNADU GRAMA BANK, SHOOLAGIRI,SALEM vs. DCIT,CPC,TDS, GAZIABAD

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA 1011/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Oct 2023AY 2013-14
Section 200ASection 234E

section 5 of the Limitation Act, the Court should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas in the former case the consideration of prejudice to the other side will be a relevant factor so the case calls

TAMILNADU GRAMA BANK, SHOOLAGIRI,SALEM vs. DCIT,CPC,TDS, GAZIABAD

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA 1015/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Oct 2023AY 2014-15
Section 200ASection 234E

section 5 of the Limitation Act, the Court should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas in the former case the consideration of prejudice to the other side will be a relevant factor so the case calls

TAMILNADU GRAMA BANK,SHOOLAGIRI,SALEM vs. DCIT,CPC,TDS, GAZIABAD

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA 1012/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Oct 2023AY 2013-14
Section 200ASection 234E

section 5 of the Limitation Act, the Court should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas in the former case the consideration of prejudice to the other side will be a relevant factor so the case calls

TAMILNADU GRAMA BANK,OMANDUR,SALEM vs. DCIT,CPC,TDS, GAZIABAD

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA 1020/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Oct 2023AY 2013-14
Section 200ASection 234E

section 5 of the Limitation Act, the Court should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas in the former case the consideration of prejudice to the other side will be a relevant factor so the case calls

TAMILNADU GRAMA BANK, OMANDUR,SALEM vs. DCIT,CPC,TDS, GAZIABAD

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA 1021/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Oct 2023AY 2014-15
Section 200ASection 234E

section 5 of the Limitation Act, the Court should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas in the former case the consideration of prejudice to the other side will be a relevant factor so the case calls

TAMILNADU GRAMA BANK, OMANDUR,- vs. -, -

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA 1022/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Oct 2023AY 2014-15
Section 200ASection 234E

section 5 of the Limitation Act, the Court should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas in the former case the consideration of prejudice to the other side will be a relevant factor so the case calls

TAMILNADU GRAMA BANK, OMANDUR,- vs. DCIT,CPC, GAZIABAD

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA 1023/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Oct 2023AY 2014-15
Section 200ASection 234E

section 5 of the Limitation Act, the Court should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas in the former case the consideration of prejudice to the other side will be a relevant factor so the case calls

TAMIL NADU GRAMA BANK SHOOLAGIRI,SALEM vs. DCIT,CPC TDS, GAZIABAD

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA 1009/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Oct 2023AY 2013-14
Section 200ASection 234E

section 5 of the Limitation Act, the Court should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas in the former case the consideration of prejudice to the other side will be a relevant factor so the case calls

TAMILNADU GRAMA BANK, OMANDUR,- vs. DCIT,CPC, GAZIABAD

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA 1026/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Oct 2023AY 2015-16
Section 200ASection 234E

section 5 of the Limitation Act, the Court should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas in the former case the consideration of prejudice to the other side will be a relevant factor so the case calls

TAMILNADU GRAMA BANK,ULUNDURPET,- vs. DCIT,CPC,TDS, GAZIABAD

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA 1038/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Oct 2023AY 2015-16
Section 200ASection 234E

section 5 of the Limitation Act, the Court should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas in the former case the consideration of prejudice to the other side will be a relevant factor so the case calls

TAMILNADU GRAMA BANK, OMANDUR,- vs. DCIT,CPC, GAZIABAD

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA 1025/CHNY/2023[2015-16+]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Oct 2023
Section 200ASection 234E

section 5 of the Limitation Act, the Court should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas in the former case the consideration of prejudice to the other side will be a relevant factor so the case calls

TAMILNADU GRAMA BANK,ULUNDURPET,- vs. DCIT,CPC,TDS, GAZIABAD

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA 1037/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Oct 2023AY 2015-16
Section 200ASection 234E

section 5 of the Limitation Act, the Court should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas in the former case the consideration of prejudice to the other side will be a relevant factor so the case calls

TAMILNADU GRAMA BANK, OMANDUR,- vs. -DCIT,CPC, GAZIABAD

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA 1027/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Oct 2023AY 2015-16
Section 200ASection 234E

section 5 of the Limitation Act, the Court should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas in the former case the consideration of prejudice to the other side will be a relevant factor so the case calls