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.

1,172 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 22clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai1,172Delhi1,150Mumbai1,057Kolkata729Pune490Bangalore478Jaipur351Ahmedabad339Hyderabad328Patna198Karnataka185Nagpur174Chandigarh163Surat138Amritsar123Raipur118Visakhapatnam112Indore111Lucknow93Cochin72Panaji69Cuttack68Rajkot58Calcutta53SC39Agra30Telangana26Guwahati24Jodhpur18Varanasi13Dehradun12Allahabad12Jabalpur11Orissa5Himachal Pradesh4Rajasthan4Andhra Pradesh3A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2Ranchi2A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Kerala1DIPAK MISRA R.K. AGRAWAL PRAFULLA C. PANT1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Addition to Income52Section 143(3)50Section 14836Condonation of Delay36Section 14735Section 12A34Section 80G(5)30Exemption24Limitation/Time-bar

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 249(2) of the IT Act. So the appellant could not successfully demonstrate that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within prescribed period. Therefore, the delay of 3297 days in filing appeal in this case is not condoned as no "sufficient cause" has been shown u/s. 249(3) of the Income

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

Showing 1–20 of 1,172 · Page 1 of 59

...
23
Disallowance21
Section 143(1)20
Section 12A(1)(ac)18

section 249(2) of the IT Act. So the appellant could not successfully demonstrate that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within prescribed period. Therefore, the delay of 3297 days in filing appeal in this case is not condoned as no "sufficient cause" has been shown u/s. 249(3) of the Income

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 249(2) of the IT Act. So the appellant could not successfully demonstrate that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within prescribed period. Therefore, the delay of 3297 days in filing appeal in this case is not condoned as no "sufficient cause" has been shown u/s. 249(3) of the Income

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 249(2) of the IT Act. So the appellant could not successfully demonstrate that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within prescribed period. Therefore, the delay of 3297 days in filing appeal in this case is not condoned as no "sufficient cause" has been shown u/s. 249(3) of the Income

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 249(2) of the IT Act. So the appellant could not successfully demonstrate that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within prescribed period. Therefore, the delay of 3297 days in filing appeal in this case is not condoned as no "sufficient cause" has been shown u/s. 249(3) of the Income

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 249(2) of the IT Act. So the appellant could not successfully demonstrate that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within prescribed period. Therefore, the delay of 3297 days in filing appeal in this case is not condoned as no "sufficient cause" has been shown u/s. 249(3) of the Income

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 249(2) of the IT Act. So the appellant could not successfully demonstrate that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within prescribed period. Therefore, the delay of 3297 days in filing appeal in this case is not condoned as no "sufficient cause" has been shown u/s. 249(3) of the Income

-TAMILNADU GRAMA BANK, KURINJIPADI,SALEM vs. DCIT,CPC, GAZIABAD

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA 1031/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Oct 2023AY 2015-16
Section 200ASection 234E

section 249(2) of the IT Act. So the appellant could not successfully demonstrate that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within prescribed period. Therefore, the delay of 3297 days in filing appeal in this case is not condoned as no "sufficient cause" has been shown u/s. 249(3) of the Income

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 249(2) of the IT Act. So the appellant could not successfully demonstrate that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within prescribed period. Therefore, the delay of 3297 days in filing appeal in this case is not condoned as no "sufficient cause" has been shown u/s. 249(3) of the Income

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

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA 1029/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Oct 2023AY 2013-14
Section 200ASection 234E

section 249(2) of the IT Act. So the appellant could not successfully demonstrate that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within prescribed period. Therefore, the delay of 3297 days in filing appeal in this case is not condoned as no "sufficient cause" has been shown u/s. 249(3) of the Income

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

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA 1028/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Oct 2023AY 2015-16
Section 200ASection 234E

section 249(2) of the IT Act. So the appellant could not successfully demonstrate that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within prescribed period. Therefore, the delay of 3297 days in filing appeal in this case is not condoned as no "sufficient cause" has been shown u/s. 249(3) of the Income

TAMIL NADU GRAMA BANK, ULUNDUEPET,- vs. DCIT,CPC,TDS, GAZIABAD

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA 1039/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Oct 2023AY 2015-16
Section 200ASection 234E

section 249(2) of the IT Act. So the appellant could not successfully demonstrate that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within prescribed period. Therefore, the delay of 3297 days in filing appeal in this case is not condoned as no "sufficient cause" has been shown u/s. 249(3) of the Income

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 249(2) of the IT Act. So the appellant could not successfully demonstrate that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within prescribed period. Therefore, the delay of 3297 days in filing appeal in this case is not condoned as no "sufficient cause" has been shown u/s. 249(3) of the Income

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 249(2) of the IT Act. So the appellant could not successfully demonstrate that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within prescribed period. Therefore, the delay of 3297 days in filing appeal in this case is not condoned as no "sufficient cause" has been shown u/s. 249(3) of the Income

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 249(2) of the IT Act. So the appellant could not successfully demonstrate that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within prescribed period. Therefore, the delay of 3297 days in filing appeal in this case is not condoned as no "sufficient cause" has been shown u/s. 249(3) of the Income

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 249(2) of the IT Act. So the appellant could not successfully demonstrate that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within prescribed period. Therefore, the delay of 3297 days in filing appeal in this case is not condoned as no "sufficient cause" has been shown u/s. 249(3) of the Income

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 249(2) of the IT Act. So the appellant could not successfully demonstrate that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within prescribed period. Therefore, the delay of 3297 days in filing appeal in this case is not condoned as no "sufficient cause" has been shown u/s. 249(3) of the Income

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 249(2) of the IT Act. So the appellant could not successfully demonstrate that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within prescribed period. Therefore, the delay of 3297 days in filing appeal in this case is not condoned as no "sufficient cause" has been shown u/s. 249(3) of the Income

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 249(2) of the IT Act. So the appellant could not successfully demonstrate that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within prescribed period. Therefore, the delay of 3297 days in filing appeal in this case is not condoned as no "sufficient cause" has been shown u/s. 249(3) of the Income

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 249(2) of the IT Act. So the appellant could not successfully demonstrate that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within prescribed period. Therefore, the delay of 3297 days in filing appeal in this case is not condoned as no "sufficient cause" has been shown u/s. 249(3) of the Income