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.

319 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 91clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai370Chennai319Delhi226Kolkata198Bangalore180Ahmedabad143Karnataka124Hyderabad104Chandigarh94Jaipur89Nagpur87Pune69Indore50Surat44Raipur37Calcutta37Visakhapatnam31Patna29Cochin25Lucknow23Rajkot22Kerala17Cuttack17Guwahati15SC9Amritsar9Agra8Allahabad8Telangana6Rajasthan5Jodhpur5Panaji4Jabalpur4Varanasi4Andhra Pradesh1Orissa1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)57Section 14856Addition to Income49Section 153A32Disallowance24Condonation of Delay23Section 14416Section 13215Limitation/Time-bar

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 delay in 4 I.T.A. Nos.108 & 109/Chny/21 filing the appeals, the assessee submits that the accountant dealing the tax matter went on long leave and did not report for duty for almost 2 months and therefore, the service of the incumbent was terminated w.e.f. 10.10.2017, i.e., from the date of leave. It was also submitted that the management

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: Disposed

Showing 1–20 of 319 · Page 1 of 16

...
15
Section 14714
Section 270A13
Section 271B12
ITAT Chennai
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 delay in 4 I.T.A. Nos.108 & 109/Chny/21 filing the appeals, the assessee submits that the accountant dealing the tax matter went on long leave and did not report for duty for almost 2 months and therefore, the service of the incumbent was terminated w.e.f. 10.10.2017, i.e., from the date of leave. It was also submitted that the management

M/S. INDO NATIONAL LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CORP CRICLE -2(2). CHENNAI, CHENNAI

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

ITA 1405/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shrimanoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 35

condone the delay of ‘93’ days and proceed to adjudicate both the appeals on merits. adjudicate both the appeals on merits. 3. First, First, we we will will take take up up appeal appeal for for AY AY 2015 2015-16 in ITA No.1404/Chny/2023. It is noted that Ground no.1 is general in nature, . It is noted that Ground no.1

M/S. INDO NATIONAL LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT COPRATE CRICLE-2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

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

ITA 1404/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shrimanoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 35

condone the delay of ‘93’ days and proceed to adjudicate both the appeals on merits. adjudicate both the appeals on merits. 3. First, First, we we will will take take up up appeal appeal for for AY AY 2015 2015-16 in ITA No.1404/Chny/2023. It is noted that Ground no.1 is general in nature, . It is noted that Ground no.1

DEVI MARINE FOOD EXPORTS P LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for 9

ITA 2167/CHNY/2015[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Feb 2016AY 1993-94

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. P. Radhakrishnan, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80H

section 51 of the Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on de merits ". The expression "sufficient ITA No. 2167/Mds/2015. :- 9 -: cause " employed by the Legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which sub serves the ends

THE ERODE CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION EMP CO-OP T& C LIMITED,ERODE vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), ERODE

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 509/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.509 & 510/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2018-2019 & 2020-2021)

For Appellant: Ms. G. Vardini Karthik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri ARV Srinivasan, IRS, Addl. CIT
Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(6)Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

condonation of delay Petition u/s 119(2)(b) to treat the return as filed u/s 139(1). The appellant has filed a petition u/s 119(2)(b) dated 26.12.2023 which is still pending before the Central board of Direct Taxes. Concept of Members and Deduction u/s 80P. 5) The CIT(A) ought to have seen that the Appellant

THE ERODE CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION EMP CO-OP T& C LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO, WARD 1 (1), ERODE

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 510/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.509 & 510/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2018-2019 & 2020-2021)

For Appellant: Ms. G. Vardini Karthik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri ARV Srinivasan, IRS, Addl. CIT
Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(6)Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

condonation of delay Petition u/s 119(2)(b) to treat the return as filed u/s 139(1). The appellant has filed a petition u/s 119(2)(b) dated 26.12.2023 which is still pending before the Central board of Direct Taxes. Concept of Members and Deduction u/s 80P. 5) The CIT(A) ought to have seen that the Appellant

PERIYA VALAVADI PACCS,VALAVADI vs. ITO, WARD-2(4), TIRUPUR

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

ITA 1733/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1733/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Periya Valavadi Primary The Income Tax Officer, Agricultural Co-Operative Vs. Ward 2(4), Credit Society, Tirupur K 2579, Periya Valavadi Paccs, Valavadi, Valavadi S.O., Tiruppur – 642 132. Pan: Aabap 9223E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Smt. S. Mathangi, Advocate (Through Virtual Mode) ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Cit & Smt. Anitha, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.08.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2025

For Appellant: Smt. S. Mathangi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, CIT &
Section 119(2)(b)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 80P

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2018-19. 2. There is a delay of 17 days in filing the appeal. The Secretary of the assessee’s society has filed affidavit for condonation of delay stating therein the reasons for belated filing of this appeal. On perusal of the same

PRINCE LOGISTICS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,KANCHIPURAM vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD 5(2). CHENNAI, CHENNAI

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

ITA 2225/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

91,56,188/-. According to the Ld.AR, the assessee came to know about the assessment order at the fag end of year 2023, when recovery steps were initiated by the AO, whereby delay of ‘582’ days had occurred; and immediately appeals were filed on 02.12.2023 against the assessment order on 30.03.2022 for both the years. Similarly, the AO had initiated

PRINCE LOGISTICS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,KANCHIPURAM vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD 5(2). CHENNAI, CHENNAI

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

ITA 2226/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

91,56,188/-. According to the Ld.AR, the assessee came to know about the assessment order at the fag end of year 2023, when recovery steps were initiated by the AO, whereby delay of ‘582’ days had occurred; and immediately appeals were filed on 02.12.2023 against the assessment order on 30.03.2022 for both the years. Similarly, the AO had initiated

PRINCE LOGISTICS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,KANCHIPURAM vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD 5(2). CHENNAI, CHENNAI

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

ITA 2224/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

91,56,188/-. According to the Ld.AR, the assessee came to know about the assessment order at the fag end of year 2023, when recovery steps were initiated by the AO, whereby delay of ‘582’ days had occurred; and immediately appeals were filed on 02.12.2023 against the assessment order on 30.03.2022 for both the years. Similarly, the AO had initiated

PRINCE LOGISTICS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED KANCHIPURAM,KANCHIPURAM vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD 5(2). CHENNAI, CHENNAI

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

ITA 2227/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

91,56,188/-. According to the Ld.AR, the assessee came to know about the assessment order at the fag end of year 2023, when recovery steps were initiated by the AO, whereby delay of ‘582’ days had occurred; and immediately appeals were filed on 02.12.2023 against the assessment order on 30.03.2022 for both the years. Similarly, the AO had initiated

R 249 KULITHALAI CO-OP PARD BANK LIMITED,KARUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KARUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2543/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. C.I.T
Section 119Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

91), 213, Kaveri Nagar, Karur. Kulittalai H.O., Kulithalai, Karur – 639 104. [PAN: AACAR-2604-J] (अपीलाथ&/Appellant) ('(यथ&/Respondent) अपीलाथ& क) ओर से/Appellant by : None '(यथ& क) ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. C.I.T. सुनवाई क) तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 20.11.2025 घोषणा क) तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 18.12.2025 आदेश

MUTHUSAMY VIKNESH KUMAR,NAMAKKAL vs. ITO, WARD-1, NAMAKKAL, NAMAKKAL

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

ITA 1226/CHNY/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Mr.Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri Manjunatha.Gआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.1226/Chny/2023 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Mr. Muthusamy Viknesh Kumar Vs Income Tax Officer, 5/242-A,Teachers Colony, Ward-1, Namakkal-637 001. Namakkal. Pan: Agnpv 1117G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. P.Sajit Kumar, JCITFor Respondent: 23.01.2024
Section 147Section 148Section 234

delay in filing of appeal is condoned and appeal filed by the assessee is admitted for adjudication. 5. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- “1.The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is not justified in dismissing the appeal, for the reason that the assessee did not respond to the hearing notices. 2.Contents of the Grounds of Appeal ought

THE PALLIPALAYAM FRMERS SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,NAMAKKAL vs. ITO CIRCLE 1, , ERODE

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

ITA 964/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.964/Chny/2024 िनधा8रण वष8 /Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Ms. G. Vardhini Karthik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 119(2)Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80PSection 80P(2)

section 80AC of the Act, even though the application for :- 2 -: condonation of delay u/s 119(2)(b) as per CBDT Circular No.13/2023 dated 26.07.2023 is pending with CBDT . 3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant society filed return of income for AY 2018-19 on 30.03.2019 offering a gross total income of Rs.2

BALASUBRAMANIAN SARAVANAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-17(7), CHENNAI

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

ITA 1498/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Murali, CAFor Respondent: Shri AR. V. Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 90

Section 91 of the Income Tax Act of 1961 have been drafted specifically to avoid the burden of double taxation. 7 In the present case, even though the petitioner had not uploaded Form~67 while filing return of tax, later he uploaded the same with delay and that too due to Covid out break he was not able

M/S. INSCRIBE GRAPHICS LTD.,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT (OSD), CORPORATE RANGE-2,, CHENNAI

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

ITA 110/CHNY/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Apr 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 110/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri I. Dinesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Periasamy, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234BSection 234CSection 90

condoning the delay in filing the appeal; even though there is a sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeal. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition made by the Assessing officer without considering the submissions made by the Assessee. 3.1. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to consider the fact where the Assessing

ACIT, TRICHY vs. JENNYS HOTEL PVT. LTD., TRICHY

In the result the appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year 2003-04 is allowed and the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1348/CHNY/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jan 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: 06.12.2017For Respondent: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCA
Section 115JSection 250Section 43B

condone the delay of 673 days in filing the cross objections by the assessee and proceed to hear the appeal on merits. 4. Assessment year 2003-04:- A) Revenue’s Appeal:- The only issue which arises in the appeal for our consideration is that the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in excluding the CO Nos.72, 73, 112,113 & 114/Mds/2014 & 132/Mds/2015 interest

CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT &FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED,PARRYS, CHENNAI vs. ACIT- CORPORATE CIRCLE -1(2), CHENNAI

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

ITA 384/CHNY/2023[AY 2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2024

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain, CA (Through Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 143(3)

condone the delay and admit the appeal. ITA Nos.384, 514 & 515/CHNY/2023 3. The first issue in this appeal of assessee is as regards to the order of CIT(A) confirming the disallowance made by AO in relation to prepaid finance charges amounting to Rs.19,96,29,043/-. For this, assessee has raised following grounds:- 1. Disallowance made for prepaid finance

M/S CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT & FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT-1(2), CHENNAI

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

ITA 847/CHNY/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain, CA (Through Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 143(3)

condone the delay and admit the appeal. ITA Nos.384, 514 & 515/CHNY/2023 3. The first issue in this appeal of assessee is as regards to the order of CIT(A) confirming the disallowance made by AO in relation to prepaid finance charges amounting to Rs.19,96,29,043/-. For this, assessee has raised following grounds:- 1. Disallowance made for prepaid finance