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.

631 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 90clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai631Mumbai539Delhi388Kolkata340Bangalore219Hyderabad213Ahmedabad182Karnataka128Jaipur125Pune85Surat82Raipur77Chandigarh69Nagpur59Indore56Amritsar52Lucknow49Cochin45Calcutta41Rajkot32Visakhapatnam31Patna23SC19Cuttack18Kerala17Allahabad14Jodhpur12Varanasi11Agra9Jabalpur8Guwahati7Telangana5Panaji4Dehradun4Ranchi3Andhra Pradesh2Rajasthan2Orissa1Himachal Pradesh1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1R.M. LODHA ANIL R. DAVE1

Key Topics

Section 14744Section 14843Addition to Income42Section 143(3)41Section 234E28Section 153A26Section 143(1)26Limitation/Time-bar24Section 90

MANSI FINANCE CHENNAI LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. THE ACIT, CC 4(1), CHENNAI

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

ITA 109/CHNY/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 108 & 109/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Prithvi Chopda, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

condonation of delays in filing appeals are set out in a number of pronouncements of this Court. See : Ramlal, Motilal and Chhotelal v. Rewa Coalfield Ltd.(1962)(2 SCR 762); Shakuntala Devi Jain v. Kuntal Kumari(1969)(1 SCR 1006); Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Nirmala Devi(1979)(3 SCR 694); Lala Mata Din v. A. Narayanan

MANSI FINANCE CHENNAI LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. THE ACIT, CC-4(1), CHENNAI

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

ITA 108/CHNY/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai

Showing 1–20 of 631 · Page 1 of 32

...
23
Condonation of Delay21
Section 36(1)(va)19
TDS15
06 Jul 2022
AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 108 & 109/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Prithvi Chopda, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

condonation of delays in filing appeals are set out in a number of pronouncements of this Court. See : Ramlal, Motilal and Chhotelal v. Rewa Coalfield Ltd.(1962)(2 SCR 762); Shakuntala Devi Jain v. Kuntal Kumari(1969)(1 SCR 1006); Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Nirmala Devi(1979)(3 SCR 694); Lala Mata Din v. A. Narayanan

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

90 days from 01.03.2022.-----." Nonetheless, this relaxation does not apply to the appellant's situation as the delay occurred before the COVID-19 pandemic's impact was felt and the statutory time limit for filing the appeal had already lapsed. Thus, it is evident that the appellant's case does not fall within the scope of the period of limitation

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 200ASection 234E

90 days from 01.03.2022.-----." Nonetheless, this relaxation does not apply to the appellant's situation as the delay occurred before the COVID-19 pandemic's impact was felt and the statutory time limit for filing the appeal had already lapsed. Thus, it is evident that the appellant's case does not fall within the scope of the period of limitation

-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

90 days from 01.03.2022.-----." Nonetheless, this relaxation does not apply to the appellant's situation as the delay occurred before the COVID-19 pandemic's impact was felt and the statutory time limit for filing the appeal had already lapsed. Thus, it is evident that the appellant's case does not fall within the scope of the period of limitation

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

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA 1030/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Oct 2023AY 2013-14
Section 200ASection 234E

90 days from 01.03.2022.-----." Nonetheless, this relaxation does not apply to the appellant's situation as the delay occurred before the COVID-19 pandemic's impact was felt and the statutory time limit for filing the appeal had already lapsed. Thus, it is evident that the appellant's case does not fall within the scope of the period of limitation

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

90 days from 01.03.2022.-----." Nonetheless, this relaxation does not apply to the appellant's situation as the delay occurred before the COVID-19 pandemic's impact was felt and the statutory time limit for filing the appeal had already lapsed. Thus, it is evident that the appellant's case does not fall within the scope of the period of limitation

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

90 days from 01.03.2022.-----." Nonetheless, this relaxation does not apply to the appellant's situation as the delay occurred before the COVID-19 pandemic's impact was felt and the statutory time limit for filing the appeal had already lapsed. Thus, it is evident that the appellant's case does not fall within the scope of the period of limitation

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

90 days from 01.03.2022.-----." Nonetheless, this relaxation does not apply to the appellant's situation as the delay occurred before the COVID-19 pandemic's impact was felt and the statutory time limit for filing the appeal had already lapsed. Thus, it is evident that the appellant's case does not fall within the scope of the period of limitation

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

90 days from 01.03.2022.-----." Nonetheless, this relaxation does not apply to the appellant's situation as the delay occurred before the COVID-19 pandemic's impact was felt and the statutory time limit for filing the appeal had already lapsed. Thus, it is evident that the appellant's case does not fall within the scope of the period of limitation

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

90 days from 01.03.2022.-----." Nonetheless, this relaxation does not apply to the appellant's situation as the delay occurred before the COVID-19 pandemic's impact was felt and the statutory time limit for filing the appeal had already lapsed. Thus, it is evident that the appellant's case does not fall within the scope of the period of limitation

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

90 days from 01.03.2022.-----." Nonetheless, this relaxation does not apply to the appellant's situation as the delay occurred before the COVID-19 pandemic's impact was felt and the statutory time limit for filing the appeal had already lapsed. Thus, it is evident that the appellant's case does not fall within the scope of the period of limitation

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

90 days from 01.03.2022.-----." Nonetheless, this relaxation does not apply to the appellant's situation as the delay occurred before the COVID-19 pandemic's impact was felt and the statutory time limit for filing the appeal had already lapsed. Thus, it is evident that the appellant's case does not fall within the scope of the period of limitation

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

90 days from 01.03.2022.-----." Nonetheless, this relaxation does not apply to the appellant's situation as the delay occurred before the COVID-19 pandemic's impact was felt and the statutory time limit for filing the appeal had already lapsed. Thus, it is evident that the appellant's case does not fall within the scope of the period of limitation

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

90 days from 01.03.2022.-----." Nonetheless, this relaxation does not apply to the appellant's situation as the delay occurred before the COVID-19 pandemic's impact was felt and the statutory time limit for filing the appeal had already lapsed. Thus, it is evident that the appellant's case does not fall within the scope of the period of limitation

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

90 days from 01.03.2022.-----." Nonetheless, this relaxation does not apply to the appellant's situation as the delay occurred before the COVID-19 pandemic's impact was felt and the statutory time limit for filing the appeal had already lapsed. Thus, it is evident that the appellant's case does not fall within the scope of the period of limitation

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

90 days from 01.03.2022.-----." Nonetheless, this relaxation does not apply to the appellant's situation as the delay occurred before the COVID-19 pandemic's impact was felt and the statutory time limit for filing the appeal had already lapsed. Thus, it is evident that the appellant's case does not fall within the scope of the period of limitation

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

90 days from 01.03.2022.-----." Nonetheless, this relaxation does not apply to the appellant's situation as the delay occurred before the COVID-19 pandemic's impact was felt and the statutory time limit for filing the appeal had already lapsed. Thus, it is evident that the appellant's case does not fall within the scope of the period of limitation

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

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA 1034/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Oct 2023AY 2013-14
Section 200ASection 234E

90 days from 01.03.2022.-----." Nonetheless, this relaxation does not apply to the appellant's situation as the delay occurred before the COVID-19 pandemic's impact was felt and the statutory time limit for filing the appeal had already lapsed. Thus, it is evident that the appellant's case does not fall within the scope of the period of limitation

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

90 days from 01.03.2022.-----." Nonetheless, this relaxation does not apply to the appellant's situation as the delay occurred before the COVID-19 pandemic's impact was felt and the statutory time limit for filing the appeal had already lapsed. Thus, it is evident that the appellant's case does not fall within the scope of the period of limitation