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.

761 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 250clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,337Kolkata847Chennai761Delhi610Pune569Bangalore498Ahmedabad411Patna339Jaipur319Amritsar228Surat224Raipur221Hyderabad197Indore194Rajkot177Nagpur176Panaji147Chandigarh120Cochin106Karnataka103Lucknow100Visakhapatnam88Guwahati84Agra70Calcutta41Jabalpur39Cuttack37Allahabad30Jodhpur20Varanasi16Dehradun15Ranchi12SC4Himachal Pradesh1Andhra Pradesh1Telangana1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 25060Section 14834Addition to Income34Condonation of Delay33Section 14425Section 14723Section 143(3)22Natural Justice18Section 148A

VEEDIYARASAMPALAYAM POWERLOOM WEAVERS CO-OP PRODUCTION AND SALES SOCIETY LTD.,NAMAKKAL vs. ITO, TDS WARD,, SALEM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 3020/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Easwar, JCIT
Section 200ASection 234ESection 250

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ITA No.3018 to 3020/CHNY/2024 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Years are 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16. 2. There is a delay of 86 days in filing each of the appeals. The assessee has filed petitions for condonation

VEEDIYARASAMPALAYAM POWERLOOM WEAVERS CO-OP PRODUCTION AND SALES SOCIETY LTD.,NAMAKKAL vs. ITO, TDS WARD,, SALEM

Showing 1–20 of 761 · Page 1 of 39

...
17
Limitation/Time-bar16
Penalty14
Section 80P13

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 3019/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Easwar, JCIT
Section 200ASection 234ESection 250

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ITA No.3018 to 3020/CHNY/2024 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Years are 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16. 2. There is a delay of 86 days in filing each of the appeals. The assessee has filed petitions for condonation

VEEDIYARASAMPALAYAM POWERLOOM WEAVERS CO-OP PRODUCTION AND SALES SOCIETY LTD.,NAMAKKAL vs. ITO, TDS WARD,, SALEM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 3018/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Easwar, JCIT
Section 200ASection 234ESection 250

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ITA No.3018 to 3020/CHNY/2024 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Years are 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16. 2. There is a delay of 86 days in filing each of the appeals. The assessee has filed petitions for condonation

CHARSUR ARTS FOUNDATION,CHENNAI vs. CIT, EXEMPTIONS,, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1753/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Jagadishआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No.:1753/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 Charsur Arts Foundation, The Commissioner Of No. 72, M.C.P. Ramasamy Road, Vs. Income Tax (Exemption), Alwarpet, Chennai 600 018. Chennai. [Pan: Aabtc-1154-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Hithesh, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R Per George George K: This Appeal Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Chennai Dated 16.05.2025 Passed Under Section 119(2)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Solitary Issue Argued On Merits Is With Regard To Maintainability Of Appeal Filed Against The Order Passed Under Section 119(2)(B) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Hithesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 139

condonation of delay under section 119(2)(b) of the Act. 6. We note that the appeal filed by the assessee is not maintainable before the Tribunal for the reason that an assessee is not vested with any right to assail an order passed under section 119(2)(b) of the Act by preferring an appeal before the Income

SRI KUMAWAT SAMAJ TRUST,CHENNAI vs. CIT, EXEMPTIONS,, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 627/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.627/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 Sri Kumawat Samaj Trust, Vs. The Commissioner Of No. 14, 1St Floor, Kumarappa Street, Income Tax (Exemptions), Sevenwells, Chennai 600 001. Chennai. [Pan:Aavts7941K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Naresh Singh Rathore, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.05.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.12.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Chennai For The Assessment Year 2020-21 Under Section 119(2)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri Naresh Singh Rathore, CAFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 111Section 115VSection 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 132Section 132ASection 139Section 154Section 158BSection 250

condonation of delay under section 1119(2)(b) of the Act. 6. We note that the appeal filed by the assessee is not maintainable before the Tribunal for the reason that an assessee is not vested with any right to assail an order passed under section 119(2)(b) of the Act by preferring an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal

TIRUPUR ARUNACHALA GOUNDER RADHAMBIKAI KUPPUSAMY,TIRUPUR vs. CIT(A), NFAC, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 363/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.363/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) T A G Radhambikai Kuppusamy, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.5, Mp Nagar Extension, Che –C (68) (1) Suriya Prabha Garden, Chennai. Tirupur 641 607

For Appellant: Shri. S. Ramachandran, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. ARV Srinivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148ASection 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250Section 51

250 of the Act before the CIT(A) with a delay of 239 days. 5. As per Section 249(2) of the Act appeal shall be presented within 30 days to the CIT(A) which can be condoned

NEETHIVANAN JEYASUDHA,CHENNAI vs. ADDL JCIT (A), JODHPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 449/CHNY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.449/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Neethivanan Jeyasudha, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, New No.P3, Old No.P13, Non Corporate Ward 19(4) 19Th Street, Anna Nagar, Chennai. Chennai 600 040. [Pan: Aplpj5195D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. Varadarajan, Cma ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. R. Mukundan, Irs, Jcit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 13.06.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.06.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri. Varadarajan, CMAFor Respondent: Shri. R. Mukundan, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250

250 of CIT(A) with a delay of 7 months. 5. As per Section 249(2) of the Act appeal shall be presented within 30 days to the CIT(A) which can be condoned

ELUMALAI RAJESHKUMAR,VILLUPURAM vs. ITO, WARD-1,, VILLUPURAM

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

ITA 3478/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Ms. S. Vindhiya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 154Section 270ASection 271A

condone the delay subject to payment of ₹10,000/- for each appeal to the State Legal Aid Authority, Hon’ble Madras High Court within three (3) months of receipt of this order; and produce necessary proof of depositing of the same before the First Appellate Authority. In light of discussion, we set aside the impugned orders passed by the Ld.CIT

ELUMALAI RAJESHKUMAR,VILLUPURAM vs. ITO, WARD-1,, VILLUPURAM

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

ITA 3479/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Ms. S. Vindhiya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 154Section 270ASection 271A

condone the delay subject to payment of ₹10,000/- for each appeal to the State Legal Aid Authority, Hon’ble Madras High Court within three (3) months of receipt of this order; and produce necessary proof of depositing of the same before the First Appellate Authority. In light of discussion, we set aside the impugned orders passed by the Ld.CIT

ELUMALAI RAJEHSKUMAR,VILLUPURAM vs. ITO, WARD-1,, VILLUPURAM

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

ITA 3480/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Ms. S. Vindhiya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 154Section 270ASection 271A

condone the delay subject to payment of ₹10,000/- for each appeal to the State Legal Aid Authority, Hon’ble Madras High Court within three (3) months of receipt of this order; and produce necessary proof of depositing of the same before the First Appellate Authority. In light of discussion, we set aside the impugned orders passed by the Ld.CIT

TNSPL 88 KEELAERAL PRIMARY AGRICULTURE CO-OP SOCIETY,TUTICORIN vs. ITO WARD 2, TUTICORIN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 724/CHNY/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jun 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 724/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2023-24 M/S. Tnspl 88 Keelaeral The Income Tax Officer, Primary Agriculture Co-Op Vs. Ward 2, Society, Tuticorin. Keelaeral Village, Keelaeral Post, Ettayapuram Taluk, Tuticorin – 628 908. Pan: Aacat 5739L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Pryati Sharma, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.06.2025

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Pryati Sharma, JCIT
Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80P

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2023-24. 2. There is a delay of 11 days in filing the appeal. The assessee has filed petition for condonation

MUDHIYOR BALARKUDUMBA GRAMA PANNAI,VELLORE vs. EXEMPTIONS WARD 1, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 592/CHNY/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.592/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23)

For Appellant: Shri. M. Abhishek, FCAFor Respondent: Shri S. Easwar, IRS, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250Section 51

250 of CIT(A) with a delay of 215 days. 4. As per Section 249(2) of the Act appeal shall be presented within 30 days to the CIT(A) which can be condoned

SRI VASHISTA FOUNDATION,KARAIKAL vs. CIT, EXEMPTIONS,, CHENNAI

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

ITA 1257/CHNY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1257/Chny/2024 िनधा9रण वष9 /Assessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 115VSection 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 132Section 132ASection 143Section 147Section 153ASection 153CSection 154

condonation of delay before PCCIT. 4. We have heard the rival submissions, and perused the materials available on record. The issue of maintainability has come before Co- ordinate Bench ITAT, Raipur in the case of Shrishti Institute of Medical Science and Research Centre

ITO (EXEMPTIONS), CHENNAI vs. RESEARCH FOUNDATION FOR JAINOLOGY,, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1514/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Apr 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri. G. Pavan Kumar

For Respondent: Shri. M. Karunakaran, Advocate
Section 143(3)

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. Before going into the merits of the case, the Revenue has pleaded for condonation of delay of 249 days in filing the appeal and explained the reasons and filed the affidavit. 3. The ld. Authorised Representative of the assessee seriously objected to the condonation

MANOHARAN,THIRUVARU vs. ITO, CIRCLE-2(1), TIRUCHIRAPPALLI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 870/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.869 & 870/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18 V. Shri Manoharan, The Assistant Commissioner Of No.9, Then Vadal South Street, Income Tax, Mannargudi, Circle 2(1), Thiruvarur District – 614 001. Trichy.

For Appellant: Shri K. Meenakshisundaram, ITPFor Respondent: Shri Gautham S. Mukundan, IRS

condone the delay in filing of appeals before the Ld.CIT(A). Therefore, we set aside the impugned orders of the Ld.CIT(A) and restore the appeals back to his file with a direction to adjudicate the grounds of appeals raised by the assessee as provided for under sub-section (6) to Section 250

MANOHARAN,TIRUVARUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), TRICHY

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 869/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.869 & 870/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18 V. Shri Manoharan, The Assistant Commissioner Of No.9, Then Vadal South Street, Income Tax, Mannargudi, Circle 2(1), Thiruvarur District – 614 001. Trichy.

For Appellant: Shri K. Meenakshisundaram, ITPFor Respondent: Shri Gautham S. Mukundan, IRS

condone the delay in filing of appeals before the Ld.CIT(A). Therefore, we set aside the impugned orders of the Ld.CIT(A) and restore the appeals back to his file with a direction to adjudicate the grounds of appeals raised by the assessee as provided for under sub-section (6) to Section 250

GOLDQUEST INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2283/CHNY/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. G. Seetharaman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A.V. Sreekantha, JCIT
Section 10(34)Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 249

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’). The assessee has raised only substantive ground that the 2. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not condoning the delay of 52 days in filing of appeal and overlooking genuine reasons and dismissed the appeal on technical grounds. The Brief facts of the case that

SRIYEDUVAKA KRISHNAM NAIDU,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 594/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Apr 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri.R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A.V.Sreekanth, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 249Section 40Section 40A(3)

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’). The assessee is an individual engaged in civil contractor work 2. doing business in the name of S.V. Construction. The assessee filed Return of income on 15.10.2010 admitting a total income of "30,07,450/- and the same was processed u/s.143

UMADEVI SIVAJI,DHARMAPURI vs. ITO, WARD-1,, DHARMAPURI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3669/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3669/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Mr. S.Velpandiar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. M.D.Vijay Kumar, JCIT
Section 144Section 250Section 69A

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") dated 21.12.2021 for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. 2. The assessee is an individual and is engaged in the whole sale business of cattle feed. The assessee filed the return of income for AY 2017-18 Umadevi Sivaji :- 2 -: declaring total income of Rs.3,44,440/-. The case

SRI SORIMUTHAYANNAR TEMPLE ,TIRUNELVELI vs. ITO, EXEMPTIONS WARD,, TIRUNELVELI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1754/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1754/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Sri Sorimuthayannar The Income Tax Officer, Temple, Vs. Exemptions Ward, Sinvampatti Ambasamudram, Tirunelveli. Tirunelveli – 627 416. Pan: Aabth 0590D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri V. Arunachalesh, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Smt. Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.08.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri V. Arunachalesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 250

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2015-16. 2. There is a delay of 201 days in filing the appeal. The appeal ought to have been filed before ITAT on or before 03.11.2024. However, the appeal was filed belatedly on 19.06.2025. The assessee Trust has filed a petition