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.

8 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 80Jclear

Sorted by relevance

Bangalore19Ahmedabad15Delhi11Indore10Mumbai10Pune10Chennai8Surat6Jaipur3Chandigarh2Kolkata2Raipur1Jodhpur1Amritsar1Hyderabad1

Key Topics

Section 80I24Section 80P(2)(a)12Section 143(1)11Section 117Section 1547Section 115B7Deduction6Rectification u/s 1545Section 143(3)

SINDHANAI ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD-6(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3260/CHNY/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 3259 & 3260/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2021-22& 2022-23 Sindhanai Artificial Intelligence The Income Tax Officer, Systems Pvt. Ltd., V. Corporate Ward6(3) New No.33/2, Old No.5/2, Chennai. Rajeshwari Apartment, 5Th Cross Street, Alagiri Nagar, Vadapalani, Chennai – 600 026. [Pan:Aaxcs 9635F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri J. Saravanan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26.03.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri J. Saravanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80I

delay in filing the return itself so that it is accompanied by the audit report, should also be taken care of while construing the statute constitutionally valid. In such event, the Income-tax Officer could not deny the deduction merely because the report is not filed along with the return, otherwise, the very purpose of section 32AB(5) would

4
Section 10A4
Condonation of Delay4
Disallowance3

SINDHANAI ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD-6(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3259/CHNY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 3259 & 3260/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2021-22& 2022-23 Sindhanai Artificial Intelligence The Income Tax Officer, Systems Pvt. Ltd., V. Corporate Ward6(3) New No.33/2, Old No.5/2, Chennai. Rajeshwari Apartment, 5Th Cross Street, Alagiri Nagar, Vadapalani, Chennai – 600 026. [Pan:Aaxcs 9635F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri J. Saravanan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26.03.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri J. Saravanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80I

delay in filing the return itself so that it is accompanied by the audit report, should also be taken care of while construing the statute constitutionally valid. In such event, the Income-tax Officer could not deny the deduction merely because the report is not filed along with the return, otherwise, the very purpose of section 32AB(5) would

SASIKALA EDUCATIONAL TRUST,MADURAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTIONS,, MADURAI

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

ITA 3342/CHNY/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Mar 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3342/Chny/2024 िनधा+रण वष+ /Assessment Year: 2022-23

For Appellant: The assessee is a trust filed its return of income for the AY-2022-23For Respondent: Shri Shivanand K Kalakeri, CIT
Section 11Section 12A(1)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 44A

condonation of delay in filing Form 10B before the ld.PCIT. 8. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the record and case laws cited at bar. Recently the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry of India Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax [2024] 165 taxmann.com 510 (Delhi)/[2024] 300 Taxman

MANGAL TIRTH ESTATE LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD-4(1), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 30/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:30/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Mangal Tirth Estate Ltd., Income Tax Officer, 769, Spencer Plaza, Anna Salai, Vs. Corporate Ward- 4(1), Mount Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 002. [Pan:Aaacm-4614-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. N. V. Balaji, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Anitha, Addl. C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14.05.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Filed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal, Addl/ Jcit (A)-4, Hyderabad, For The Assessment Year 2020-21, Vide Order Dated 07.11.2024. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Company Filed Its Return Of Income For The A.Y.2020-21 On 17.11.2020 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.11,20,57,920/-. The Return Of Income Was Processed By The Ao, Cpc, Bangalore On 29.12.2021 & Raised A Demand Of Rs.93,79,350/- By Denying The Beneficial Tax Rate As Per Section 115Baa Of The Act & By Applying The Tax Rate Of 30%.

For Appellant: Shri. N. V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl. C.I.T
Section 115BSection 119(2)(b)Section 154

condonation application filed u/s.119(2)(b) of the Act for delay in filing the form 10-IC vide order dated 20.02.2025. On perusal of the ITR 7 filed by the assessee, we find that the assessee has filed the return of income on or before the due date prescribed u/s.139(1) of the Act as per the condition laid down

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI vs. ASTROTECH STEELS PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

The appeal stand dismissed in terms of our above order

ITA 1150/CHNY/2023[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1150/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Dcit M/S Astrotech Steels Private Limited बनाम/ Corporate Circle-1(1) 19, Ii Floor, Right Wing, Ghatala Towers, Chennai. Avenue Road, Nungambakkam Vs. Chennai-34. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aakca-0128-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar (Jcit)- Ld. Sr. Dr " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri T. Vasudevan (Advocate) -Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Final Hearing : 27-06-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-07-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT)- Ld. Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri T. Vasudevan (Advocate) -Ld. AR
Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 154

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 3. The Ld. Sr. DR, at the outset, referred to the recent judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs Wipro Ltd. (2022) 140 Taxmann.com 223 (SC) as well as other decisions in Checkmate Services P. Ltd Vs. CIT (2022) 143 Taxmann.com

INCOME TAX OFFICER, CHENNAI vs. RAILWAY EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2095/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri. Vignesh Kumarasamy, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

condone delay in filing of appeal and admit appeal filed by the Revenue for adjudication. 4. The main grievance of the Revenue is against the action of the Ld.CIT(A) in allowing the deduction u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act on interest income earned from deposits maintained with Co-operative Banks of Rs.6,72,00,055/-. 5. Brief facts

INCOME TAX OFFICER, CHENNAI vs. RAILWAY EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY, CHENNAI

In the result, the both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2096/CHNY/2025[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri. Vignesh Kumarasamy, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

condone delay in filing of appeal and admit appeal filed by the Revenue for adjudication. 4. The main grievance of the Revenue is against the action of the Ld.CIT(A) in allowing the deduction u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act on interest income earned from deposits maintained with Co-operative Banks of Rs.6,72,00,055/-. 5. Brief facts

DXN HERBAL MANUFACTURING INDIA PVT. LTD.,PONDICHERRY vs. ACIT, PONDICHERRY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2438/CHNY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Mr.K.Ravi,AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.AR.V.Sreenivasan,JCIT,D.R
Section 11BSection 431Section 43BSection 801B

delay in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal is disposed of on merit. 4. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds:- 1. The Order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and that of the Assessing Officer is contrary to the law, facts and circumstances of the case and in any case violative