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.

216 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 253(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai328Delhi222Chennai216Indore186Ahmedabad182Kolkata169Karnataka139Jaipur137Surat122Bangalore108Lucknow107Chandigarh102Pune69Raipur47Cochin45Panaji43Hyderabad43Nagpur40Cuttack40Rajkot37Allahabad35Patna28Jabalpur22Jodhpur22Varanasi20Visakhapatnam17Guwahati14Amritsar12Ranchi9Agra8SC4Telangana2Calcutta1Andhra Pradesh1Rajasthan1Dehradun1

Key Topics

Addition to Income68Section 36(1)(va)67Section 43B64Section 139(1)50Deduction42Section 271(1)(c)33Disallowance28Section 200A27Section 253(4)

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

3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has to be carried out within the meaning of "Sufficient Cause" as envisaged in Section 5 of Limitation Act. Hence, the general rule of law of limitation is that an extension shall not be granted under Section 5 if there is no sufficient cause or cogent ground for the condonation of delay

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 200A

Showing 1–20 of 216 · Page 1 of 11

...
24
Section 14A21
TDS20
Limitation/Time-bar19
Section 234E

3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has to be carried out within the meaning of "Sufficient Cause" as envisaged in Section 5 of Limitation Act. Hence, the general rule of law of limitation is that an extension shall not be granted under Section 5 if there is no sufficient cause or cogent ground for the condonation of delay

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

3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has to be carried out within the meaning of "Sufficient Cause" as envisaged in Section 5 of Limitation Act. Hence, the general rule of law of limitation is that an extension shall not be granted under Section 5 if there is no sufficient cause or cogent ground for the condonation of delay

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

3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has to be carried out within the meaning of "Sufficient Cause" as envisaged in Section 5 of Limitation Act. Hence, the general rule of law of limitation is that an extension shall not be granted under Section 5 if there is no sufficient cause or cogent ground for the condonation of delay

-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

3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has to be carried out within the meaning of "Sufficient Cause" as envisaged in Section 5 of Limitation Act. Hence, the general rule of law of limitation is that an extension shall not be granted under Section 5 if there is no sufficient cause or cogent ground for the condonation of delay

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

3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has to be carried out within the meaning of "Sufficient Cause" as envisaged in Section 5 of Limitation Act. Hence, the general rule of law of limitation is that an extension shall not be granted under Section 5 if there is no sufficient cause or cogent ground for the condonation of delay

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

3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has to be carried out within the meaning of "Sufficient Cause" as envisaged in Section 5 of Limitation Act. Hence, the general rule of law of limitation is that an extension shall not be granted under Section 5 if there is no sufficient cause or cogent ground for the condonation of delay

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

3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has to be carried out within the meaning of "Sufficient Cause" as envisaged in Section 5 of Limitation Act. Hence, the general rule of law of limitation is that an extension shall not be granted under Section 5 if there is no sufficient cause or cogent ground for the condonation of delay

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

3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has to be carried out within the meaning of "Sufficient Cause" as envisaged in Section 5 of Limitation Act. Hence, the general rule of law of limitation is that an extension shall not be granted under Section 5 if there is no sufficient cause or cogent ground for the condonation of delay

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

3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has to be carried out within the meaning of "Sufficient Cause" as envisaged in Section 5 of Limitation Act. Hence, the general rule of law of limitation is that an extension shall not be granted under Section 5 if there is no sufficient cause or cogent ground for the condonation of delay

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

3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has to be carried out within the meaning of "Sufficient Cause" as envisaged in Section 5 of Limitation Act. Hence, the general rule of law of limitation is that an extension shall not be granted under Section 5 if there is no sufficient cause or cogent ground for the condonation of delay

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

3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has to be carried out within the meaning of "Sufficient Cause" as envisaged in Section 5 of Limitation Act. Hence, the general rule of law of limitation is that an extension shall not be granted under Section 5 if there is no sufficient cause or cogent ground for the condonation of delay

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

3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has to be carried out within the meaning of "Sufficient Cause" as envisaged in Section 5 of Limitation Act. Hence, the general rule of law of limitation is that an extension shall not be granted under Section 5 if there is no sufficient cause or cogent ground for the condonation of delay

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

3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has to be carried out within the meaning of "Sufficient Cause" as envisaged in Section 5 of Limitation Act. Hence, the general rule of law of limitation is that an extension shall not be granted under Section 5 if there is no sufficient cause or cogent ground for the condonation of delay

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

3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has to be carried out within the meaning of "Sufficient Cause" as envisaged in Section 5 of Limitation Act. Hence, the general rule of law of limitation is that an extension shall not be granted under Section 5 if there is no sufficient cause or cogent ground for the condonation of delay

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

3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has to be carried out within the meaning of "Sufficient Cause" as envisaged in Section 5 of Limitation Act. Hence, the general rule of law of limitation is that an extension shall not be granted under Section 5 if there is no sufficient cause or cogent ground for the condonation of delay

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

3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has to be carried out within the meaning of "Sufficient Cause" as envisaged in Section 5 of Limitation Act. Hence, the general rule of law of limitation is that an extension shall not be granted under Section 5 if there is no sufficient cause or cogent ground for the condonation of delay

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

3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has to be carried out within the meaning of "Sufficient Cause" as envisaged in Section 5 of Limitation Act. Hence, the general rule of law of limitation is that an extension shall not be granted under Section 5 if there is no sufficient cause or cogent ground for the condonation of delay

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

3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has to be carried out within the meaning of "Sufficient Cause" as envisaged in Section 5 of Limitation Act. Hence, the general rule of law of limitation is that an extension shall not be granted under Section 5 if there is no sufficient cause or cogent ground for the condonation of delay

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

3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has to be carried out within the meaning of "Sufficient Cause" as envisaged in Section 5 of Limitation Act. Hence, the general rule of law of limitation is that an extension shall not be granted under Section 5 if there is no sufficient cause or cogent ground for the condonation of delay