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.

140 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 249(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai228Chennai140Kolkata127Chandigarh118Delhi105Bangalore103Ahmedabad100Raipur71Hyderabad70Jaipur69Surat57Pune56Indore53Visakhapatnam36Lucknow35Panaji28Agra26Amritsar25Patna23Cuttack23Nagpur14Rajkot14Guwahati12Ranchi11Jodhpur11Jabalpur9Allahabad6Cochin5Dehradun3SC2Varanasi2

Key Topics

Addition to Income49Limitation/Time-bar44Section 143(1)39Condonation of Delay33Section 14732Section 143(3)30Section 249(3)30Section 14830TDS

D.A.V. EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-2, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2014-15,\n2017-18 & 2018-19 are allowed and the appeal for AY 2015-16 is partly\nallowed

ITA 1669/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2026AY 2017-18
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(15)

condonation\nunder section 119(2)(b) of the Act before the Id. CIT(E). The Id. CIT(E)\ncondoned the said delay in filing Form 10A vide his order dated\n30.11.2016 and referred to page 82 of the paper book. He vehemently\nargued that the Assessing Officer, considering all the details, accepted\nthe returned income and formed an opinion that

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

Showing 1–20 of 140 · Page 1 of 7

30
Section 200A27
Section 234E25
Section 80I21

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA 1018/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

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

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

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 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

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

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 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

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

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA 1024/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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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