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.

392 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 85clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai427Chennai392Delhi308Kolkata242Ahmedabad162Karnataka129Bangalore124Hyderabad112Jaipur112Pune91Surat72Chandigarh69Indore44Rajkot43Calcutta38Cochin38Nagpur32Cuttack29Visakhapatnam28Raipur27Lucknow23Ranchi22Kerala17Patna12SC10Amritsar9Agra8Guwahati8Allahabad7Jabalpur5Jodhpur5Panaji4Telangana4Dehradun3Orissa2Rajasthan2Himachal Pradesh2Andhra Pradesh1DIPAK MISRA R.K. AGRAWAL PRAFULLA C. PANT1Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)57Section 14838Section 14737Addition to Income35Condonation of Delay22Section 13220Section 234E18Disallowance17Section 153A

HEENA G JAIN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT/DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2058/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon’Ble S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.2058/Chny/2025 िनधा7रण वष7 /Assessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Shrey Kumar M. Jain, C.A GHFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)

85,763/- as against a loss of Rs. 1,14,320/- declared by the assessee. Aggrieved by the said intimation, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 6 years and 17 days. The Ld. CIT(A), however, declined to condone the delay on the ground that no satisfactory explanation was offered. 3. Aggrieved

RAJALAKSHMI VETTRIVEL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Showing 1–20 of 392 · Page 1 of 20

...
16
Section 69A14
Deduction14
Limitation/Time-bar12
ITA 1110/CHNY/2017[2006-2007]Status: Disposed
ITAT Chennai
31 Aug 2017
AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Mr.B.Sagadevan, JICIT, D.R
Section 144Section 153CSection 234A

section 273B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, must necessarily have a relation to the failure on the part of the assessee to comply with the requirement of the law which he had failed to comply with. In the case of delay in compliance, the cause shown must be for the whole of the period of the delay

RAJALAKSHMI VETTRIVEL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1109/CHNY/2017[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Aug 2017AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Mr.B.Sagadevan, JICIT, D.R
Section 144Section 153CSection 234A

section 273B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, must necessarily have a relation to the failure on the part of the assessee to comply with the requirement of the law which he had failed to comply with. In the case of delay in compliance, the cause shown must be for the whole of the period of the delay

RAJALAKSHMI VETTRIVEL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1106/CHNY/2017[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Aug 2017AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Mr.B.Sagadevan, JICIT, D.R
Section 144Section 153CSection 234A

section 273B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, must necessarily have a relation to the failure on the part of the assessee to comply with the requirement of the law which he had failed to comply with. In the case of delay in compliance, the cause shown must be for the whole of the period of the delay

RAJALAKSHMI VETTRIVEL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1108/CHNY/2017[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Aug 2017AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Mr.B.Sagadevan, JICIT, D.R
Section 144Section 153CSection 234A

section 273B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, must necessarily have a relation to the failure on the part of the assessee to comply with the requirement of the law which he had failed to comply with. In the case of delay in compliance, the cause shown must be for the whole of the period of the delay

RAJALAKSHMI VETTRIVEL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1111/CHNY/2017[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Aug 2017AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Mr.B.Sagadevan, JICIT, D.R
Section 144Section 153CSection 234A

section 273B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, must necessarily have a relation to the failure on the part of the assessee to comply with the requirement of the law which he had failed to comply with. In the case of delay in compliance, the cause shown must be for the whole of the period of the delay

RAJALAKSHMI VETTRIVEL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1107/CHNY/2017[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Aug 2017AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Mr.B.Sagadevan, JICIT, D.R
Section 144Section 153CSection 234A

section 273B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, must necessarily have a relation to the failure on the part of the assessee to comply with the requirement of the law which he had failed to comply with. In the case of delay in compliance, the cause shown must be for the whole of the period of the delay

RANE ENGINE VALVE LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE-5(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 in ITA No

ITA 885/CHNY/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Suresh, JCIT
Section 143(3)

condone the delay and admit the appeal. 4. The first common issue in these five appeals of assessee is as regards to the order of CIT(A) confirming the action of the AO in making disallowance of professional fee paid to EVA Delith, Germany without deduction of TDS u/s.195 of the Act and thereby invoking the provisions of section

RANE ENGINE VALVES LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 in ITA No

ITA 1498/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Suresh, JCIT
Section 143(3)

condone the delay and admit the appeal. 4. The first common issue in these five appeals of assessee is as regards to the order of CIT(A) confirming the action of the AO in making disallowance of professional fee paid to EVA Delith, Germany without deduction of TDS u/s.195 of the Act and thereby invoking the provisions of section

RANE ENGINE VALVES LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 in ITA No

ITA 1497/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Suresh, JCIT
Section 143(3)

condone the delay and admit the appeal. 4. The first common issue in these five appeals of assessee is as regards to the order of CIT(A) confirming the action of the AO in making disallowance of professional fee paid to EVA Delith, Germany without deduction of TDS u/s.195 of the Act and thereby invoking the provisions of section

RANE ENGINE VALVE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 5(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 in ITA No

ITA 2815/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Suresh, JCIT
Section 143(3)

condone the delay and admit the appeal. 4. The first common issue in these five appeals of assessee is as regards to the order of CIT(A) confirming the action of the AO in making disallowance of professional fee paid to EVA Delith, Germany without deduction of TDS u/s.195 of the Act and thereby invoking the provisions of section

RANE ENGINE VALVE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 5 (1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 in ITA No

ITA 1477/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Suresh, JCIT
Section 143(3)

condone the delay and admit the appeal. 4. The first common issue in these five appeals of assessee is as regards to the order of CIT(A) confirming the action of the AO in making disallowance of professional fee paid to EVA Delith, Germany without deduction of TDS u/s.195 of the Act and thereby invoking the provisions of section

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

85,400/-. The AO issued show cause notices to the assessee in this regard. Since the assessee did not respond, the AO treated the entire amount as unexplained income under section 69A of the act. Aggrieved, the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). The assessee did not respond nor submitted any details before the CIT(A). Therefore

KELLER (M) SDN BHD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT INTL TAX 1(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1319/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1319/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-2019) Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Keller (M) Sdn Bhd, Income Tax, 7Th Floor, Centennial Square, International Taxation 1(2) No.6A, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Chennai. Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024. [Pan: Aagck 8014M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. Ashik Shah, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Irs, Cit.

For Appellant: Shri. Ashik Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, IRS, CIT
Section 133(6)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 239Section 263

condonation of delay II Reassessment proceedings under Section 148 of the Act 4 31-Mar 23 Notice under section 148 of the Act 5 28-Apr 23 Income tax return filed in response to notice under section 148 09- June 22 (a) Notice under section 142(1) of the to 18 Oct Act dated

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CHENNAI vs. ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal f

ITA 2600/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.R. VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Mr.R. Clement Ramesh
Section 2Section 35

delay and therefore, the same is condoned and we proceed to decide the appeal on merits. condoned and we proceed to decide the appeal on merits. 4. The sole grievance of the Revenue in this appeal is against the The sole grievance of the Revenue in this appeal is against the The sole grievance of the Revenue in this appeal

F.V. 112 THE VILLUPURAM DISTRICT PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES COOP THRIFT AND CREDIT SOCIETY,VILLUPURAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, VILLUPURAM

In the result the appeal is allowed

ITA 2047/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.2047/Chny/2025 िनधा8रण वष8 /Assessment Year: 2019-20 Fv 112 The Villupuram District Public The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Health Department Employees Co-Op. Ward-1, Thrift & Credit Society, 60, Vilupuram. Kandasamy Layout, 1St Street, (K.K. Road), Villupuram 605 602, Viluppuram [Pan: Aaaaf4857B]

For Appellant: Shri G. Reddi Prakash, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80ASection 80P

85 days in filing this appeal. The assessee has filed petition along with affidavit for condonation of delay stating therein the reasons for belated filing of the appeal. On perusal of the aforesaid reasons in the condonation application, we are of the view that there is FV 112 – The Vilupuram. :- 2 -: sufficient cause for belated filing of this appeal. Hence

SMT. RENU AGARWAL,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 10(5),, CHENNAI

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

ITA 271/CHNY/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Mr. J. Prabhakar, C.A %&For Respondent: Mr. G. Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 263

section 263 dated 22/3/2019, by admitting the appeal on record and disposing the case on merits of the issues involved.” I.T.A No.271/Chny/2020 :- 3 -: 3. From the above, it is clear that there is a delay in filing of the appeal on the basis of wrong advice given by the Chartered Accountant. In our opinion, in the affidavit the assessee

M/S CIGFIL LTD,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CPC-TDS,, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 346/CHNY/2023[2015-16(26Q-Q1)]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Apr 2023

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manomohan Das1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.328/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-2) & 2.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.329/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-3) & 3.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.330/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-4) & 4.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.331/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-2) & 5.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.332/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-3) & 6.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.333/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-4) & 7.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.334/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2014-15 (24Q-Q-1) & 8.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.335/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2014-15 (24Q-Q-2) &

Section 234E

Section 234E of the Act which is not applicable to the appellant's case in hand challenging the levy u/s 234E for the period prior to 01.06.2015. 5. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had failed to consider the latest decisions in favour of the assessee on the levy of fees u/s 234E for the period prior to 01.06.2015 submitted

M/S CIGFIL LTD,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CPC-TDS,, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 348/CHNY/2023[2015-16(26Q-Q3)]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Apr 2023

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manomohan Das1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.328/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-2) & 2.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.329/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-3) & 3.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.330/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-4) & 4.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.331/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-2) & 5.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.332/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-3) & 6.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.333/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-4) & 7.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.334/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2014-15 (24Q-Q-1) & 8.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.335/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2014-15 (24Q-Q-2) &

Section 234E

Section 234E of the Act which is not applicable to the appellant's case in hand challenging the levy u/s 234E for the period prior to 01.06.2015. 5. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had failed to consider the latest decisions in favour of the assessee on the levy of fees u/s 234E for the period prior to 01.06.2015 submitted

M/S CIGFILLIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT,CPC, GAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 335/CHNY/2023[2014-15(24Q-Q2]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Apr 2023

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manomohan Das1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.328/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-2) & 2.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.329/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-3) & 3.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.330/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-4) & 4.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.331/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-2) & 5.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.332/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-3) & 6.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.333/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-4) & 7.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.334/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2014-15 (24Q-Q-1) & 8.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.335/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2014-15 (24Q-Q-2) &

Section 234E

Section 234E of the Act which is not applicable to the appellant's case in hand challenging the levy u/s 234E for the period prior to 01.06.2015. 5. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had failed to consider the latest decisions in favour of the assessee on the levy of fees u/s 234E for the period prior to 01.06.2015 submitted