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.

1,000 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 21clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,174Mumbai1,015Chennai1,000Pune828Kolkata686Hyderabad510Bangalore479Ahmedabad408Jaipur389Chandigarh221Patna201Visakhapatnam182Karnataka174Surat169Nagpur169Raipur142Cochin140Amritsar123Indore114Lucknow96Cuttack85Panaji74Rajkot64Calcutta54Guwahati44SC39Jodhpur37Agra33Telangana25Allahabad19Dehradun15Jabalpur14Varanasi13Orissa7Rajasthan6Himachal Pradesh4Andhra Pradesh3Ranchi3A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2DIPAK MISRA R.K. AGRAWAL PRAFULLA C. PANT1Gauhati1Kerala1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 234E49Section 143(3)48Addition to Income42Section 153A33Section 153C31Disallowance30Condonation of Delay29Limitation/Time-bar26Section 200A

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 1,000 · Page 1 of 50

...
25
TDS20
Section 14A19
Section 14817
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 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,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,ULUNDURPET,- vs. DCIT,CPC, GAZIABAD

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA 1034/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, KURINJIPADI,- vs. DCIT,CPC, GAZIABAD

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA 1030/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,KURINJIPADI,- vs. DCIT,CPC,TDS, GAZIABAD

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA 1033/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, SHOOLAGIRI,SALEM vs. DCIT, CPC,TDS, GAZIABAD

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA 1017/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,KURINJIPADI,- vs. DCIT,CPC, GAZIABAD

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA 1032/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 SHOOLAGIRI,SALEM vs. DCIT,CPC,TDS, GAZIABAD

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA 1013/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 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, 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, 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

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, ULUNDURPET,- vs. DCIT,CPC,TDS, GAZIABAD

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA 1040/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 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

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 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