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.

447 results for “condonation of delay”+ Business Incomeclear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai2,157Mumbai2,116Delhi1,406Kolkata1,314Bangalore975Pune933Hyderabad884Ahmedabad631Jaipur451Cochin447Visakhapatnam316Nagpur279Patna274Chandigarh273Surat268Indore210Cuttack202Lucknow201Raipur198Karnataka191Amritsar191Rajkot120Panaji104Calcutta75Agra69Guwahati60Jodhpur44SC32Jabalpur32Allahabad31Telangana29Varanasi22Dehradun20Ranchi10Kerala4Orissa3Andhra Pradesh2Himachal Pradesh1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 80P66Section 143(3)65Condonation of Delay50Addition to Income44Section 80P(2)(a)35Deduction35Section 26334Section 25026Cash Deposit

M/S. PARAVUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK,KOLLAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeal and stay petition filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 767/COCH/2023[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2024

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri Santosh P. Abraham, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, D.R
Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Income- tax Appellate Tribunal. The reference application filed by the Revenue is accordingly dismissed.” The Supreme Court of India in the case of Oriental Investment Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1957] 32 ITR 664, AIR 1957 SC 852, held as under (857 of AIR 1957 SC): “A finding on a question of fact is open to attack under section

Showing 1–20 of 447 · Page 1 of 23

...
26
Section 15425
Section 153C24
Section 14824

M/S.AL ZARAFA TRAVELS & MANPOWER CONSULTANTS P. LTD,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ACIT, ERNAKULAM

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

ITA 521/COCH/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 132Section 153CSection 179Section 230

business of the company was closed down. On 31.12.2016, a staff of the Income Tax Department contacted me over telephone and requested me to collect some documents relating to the company Al Zarafa Travels and Manpower Consultants (P) Ltd. Since I was to leave to my home town at Kottayam by train, the staff member came to the Railway Station

M/S.AL ZARAFA TRAVELS & MANPOWER CONSULTANTS P. LTD,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ACIT, ERNAKULAM

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

ITA 523/COCH/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Feb 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 132Section 153CSection 179Section 230

business of the company was closed down. On 31.12.2016, a staff of the Income Tax Department contacted me over telephone and requested me to collect some documents relating to the company Al Zarafa Travels and Manpower Consultants (P) Ltd. Since I was to leave to my home town at Kottayam by train, the staff member came to the Railway Station

M/S.AL ZARAFA TRAVELS & MANPOWER CONSULTANTS P. LTD,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ACIT, ERNAKULAM

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

ITA 518/COCH/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 132Section 153CSection 179Section 230

business of the company was closed down. On 31.12.2016, a staff of the Income Tax Department contacted me over telephone and requested me to collect some documents relating to the company Al Zarafa Travels and Manpower Consultants (P) Ltd. Since I was to leave to my home town at Kottayam by train, the staff member came to the Railway Station

M/S.AL ZARAFA TRAVELS & MANPOWER CONSULTANTS P. LTD,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ACIT, ERNAKULAM

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

ITA 520/COCH/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 132Section 153CSection 179Section 230

business of the company was closed down. On 31.12.2016, a staff of the Income Tax Department contacted me over telephone and requested me to collect some documents relating to the company Al Zarafa Travels and Manpower Consultants (P) Ltd. Since I was to leave to my home town at Kottayam by train, the staff member came to the Railway Station

M/S.AL ZARAFA TRAVELS & MANPOWER CONSULTANTS P. LTD,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ACIT, ERNAKULAM

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

ITA 519/COCH/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 132Section 153CSection 179Section 230

business of the company was closed down. On 31.12.2016, a staff of the Income Tax Department contacted me over telephone and requested me to collect some documents relating to the company Al Zarafa Travels and Manpower Consultants (P) Ltd. Since I was to leave to my home town at Kottayam by train, the staff member came to the Railway Station

M/S.AL ZARAFA TRAVELS & MANPOWER CONSULTANTS P. LTD,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ACIT, ERNAKULAM

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

ITA 522/COCH/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Feb 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 132Section 153CSection 179Section 230

business of the company was closed down. On 31.12.2016, a staff of the Income Tax Department contacted me over telephone and requested me to collect some documents relating to the company Al Zarafa Travels and Manpower Consultants (P) Ltd. Since I was to leave to my home town at Kottayam by train, the staff member came to the Railway Station

SRI.VARUGEHESE M. UTHUP,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE,, KOCHI

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

ITA 165/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 249(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

condonation of delay in filing the appeals was not granted. According to the CIT(A), as per the IT Act, for an appeal to be valid, the appeal has to be filed, as per section 249(2)(b) within 30 days of the notice of demand relating to the assessment or penalty. It was found that in the aforesaid cases

SRI.VARUGEHESE M. UTHUP,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE,, KOCHI

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

ITA 163/COCH/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 249(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

condonation of delay in filing the appeals was not granted. According to the CIT(A), as per the IT Act, for an appeal to be valid, the appeal has to be filed, as per section 249(2)(b) within 30 days of the notice of demand relating to the assessment or penalty. It was found that in the aforesaid cases

SRI VARGHESE M.UTHUP,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT,CEN-CIRCLE-2, KOCHI

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

ITA 162/COCH/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 249(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

condonation of delay in filing the appeals was not granted. According to the CIT(A), as per the IT Act, for an appeal to be valid, the appeal has to be filed, as per section 249(2)(b) within 30 days of the notice of demand relating to the assessment or penalty. It was found that in the aforesaid cases

SRI.VARUGEHESE M. UTHUP,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE,, KOCHI

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

ITA 168/COCH/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 249(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

condonation of delay in filing the appeals was not granted. According to the CIT(A), as per the IT Act, for an appeal to be valid, the appeal has to be filed, as per section 249(2)(b) within 30 days of the notice of demand relating to the assessment or penalty. It was found that in the aforesaid cases

SRI.VARUGEHESE M. UTHUP,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE,, KOCHI

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

ITA 169/COCH/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 249(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

condonation of delay in filing the appeals was not granted. According to the CIT(A), as per the IT Act, for an appeal to be valid, the appeal has to be filed, as per section 249(2)(b) within 30 days of the notice of demand relating to the assessment or penalty. It was found that in the aforesaid cases

SRI.VARUGEHESE M. UTHUP,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE,, KOCHI

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

ITA 171/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 249(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

condonation of delay in filing the appeals was not granted. According to the CIT(A), as per the IT Act, for an appeal to be valid, the appeal has to be filed, as per section 249(2)(b) within 30 days of the notice of demand relating to the assessment or penalty. It was found that in the aforesaid cases

SRI.VARUGEHESE M. UTHUP,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE,, KOCHI

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

ITA 172/COCH/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 249(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

condonation of delay in filing the appeals was not granted. According to the CIT(A), as per the IT Act, for an appeal to be valid, the appeal has to be filed, as per section 249(2)(b) within 30 days of the notice of demand relating to the assessment or penalty. It was found that in the aforesaid cases

SRI.VARUGEHESE M. UTHUP,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE,, KOCHI

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

ITA 170/COCH/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 249(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

condonation of delay in filing the appeals was not granted. According to the CIT(A), as per the IT Act, for an appeal to be valid, the appeal has to be filed, as per section 249(2)(b) within 30 days of the notice of demand relating to the assessment or penalty. It was found that in the aforesaid cases

SRI.VARUGEHESE M. UTHUP,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE,, KOCHI

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

ITA 167/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 249(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

condonation of delay in filing the appeals was not granted. According to the CIT(A), as per the IT Act, for an appeal to be valid, the appeal has to be filed, as per section 249(2)(b) within 30 days of the notice of demand relating to the assessment or penalty. It was found that in the aforesaid cases

SRI.VARUGEHESE M. UTHUP,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE,, KOCHI

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

ITA 166/COCH/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 249(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

condonation of delay in filing the appeals was not granted. According to the CIT(A), as per the IT Act, for an appeal to be valid, the appeal has to be filed, as per section 249(2)(b) within 30 days of the notice of demand relating to the assessment or penalty. It was found that in the aforesaid cases

SRI.VARUGEHESE M. UTHUP,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE,, KOCHI

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

ITA 164/COCH/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 249(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

condonation of delay in filing the appeals was not granted. According to the CIT(A), as per the IT Act, for an appeal to be valid, the appeal has to be filed, as per section 249(2)(b) within 30 days of the notice of demand relating to the assessment or penalty. It was found that in the aforesaid cases

SRI VARGHESE M.UTHUP,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT,CEN-CIRCLE-2, KOCHI

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

ITA 161/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 249(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

condonation of delay in filing the appeals was not granted. According to the CIT(A), as per the IT Act, for an appeal to be valid, the appeal has to be filed, as per section 249(2)(b) within 30 days of the notice of demand relating to the assessment or penalty. It was found that in the aforesaid cases

MAGGY SUNNY( PROP.SUNNY JACOB JEWELLERS 916 KERALA SHOWROOM,TRIVANDRUM vs. THEITO, WD-3, KOTTAYAM

In the result, both the appeal and the Stay Petition filed by the assessee are

ITA 258/COCH/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

condonation of delay, for the Assessment tear 2008-09. The appeal is filed against the common order dated 31.03.2016 in I.T.A. No.346/M/CIT(A)-lV/Kochi/2015-16 and connected appeal passed by the ClT(A)-lV, Kochi. 3. The appeal filed by the petitioner before the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-lV, Kochi, vide I.T.A. No.346/ClT(A)-lV/Kochi/2015-16, was disposed of by order