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.

164 results for “condonation of delay”+ Exemptionclear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai1,520Mumbai1,223Delhi1,145Ahmedabad700Kolkata690Pune682Bangalore513Jaipur437Hyderabad398Chandigarh294Nagpur232Cuttack185Cochin164Visakhapatnam163Lucknow155Surat132Karnataka130Amritsar119Indore112Raipur96Rajkot93Calcutta76Guwahati65Panaji56Patna48Agra46SC39Jodhpur33Allahabad29Jabalpur25Dehradun19Varanasi19Ranchi14Telangana13Orissa4Rajasthan3Punjab & Haryana3A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2Himachal Pradesh2A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Andhra Pradesh1Uttarakhand1DIPAK MISRA R.K. AGRAWAL PRAFULLA C. PANT1VIKRAMAJIT SEN SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1R.M. LODHA ANIL R. DAVE1

Key Topics

Exemption76Section 12A72Section 80P61Section 1157Condonation of Delay51Section 139(1)36Section 143(3)34Deduction32Section 80P(2)(a)31

M/S.KOSAMATTOM FINANCE P. LTD,KOTTAYAM vs. THE ACIT, KOTTAYAM, KOTTAYAM

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

ITA 600/COCH/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. T.M.SreedharanFor Respondent: Sri.Santham Bose
Section 143(3)Section 263

condoned the delay by observing as under:- “4. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the facts of the case. The undisputed fact is that the appeal has been filed late by 1964 days before the Tribunal. In the affidavit filed by the assessee-Trust, it was stated that the appeal has been filed late because of the professional

M/S THE KASARAGOD TODDY TAPPERS AND SHOP WORKERS CO-OP SOCIETY LTD,KASARGOD vs. ITO WARD -1, KASARGOD

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are dismissed as not maintainable

Showing 1–20 of 164 · Page 1 of 9

...
Addition to Income30
Section 80G25
Charitable Trust25
ITA 908/COCH/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Aby T.Varkey

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 260A(2)(a)Section 5

condoning the delay of 1855 days. We decide accordingly. ITA Nos. 908 & 909/Coch/2022 (AYs: 2010-11& 11-12) Kasaragod Toddy Tappers and Shop Workers Co-operative Society Ltd.v. ITOO 5. The ld. CIT(A), however, without prejudice, and in the alternative, has discussed the appeal on merits as well.It is, in view of our decisionconfirming his order/s holding the appeal/sbefore

M/S THE KASARAGOD TODDY TAPPERS AND SHOP WORKERS CO-OP SOCIETY LTD,KASARGOD vs. ITO WARD 1, KASARGOD

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are dismissed as not maintainable

ITA 909/COCH/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Aby T.Varkey

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 260A(2)(a)Section 5

condoning the delay of 1855 days. We decide accordingly. ITA Nos. 908 & 909/Coch/2022 (AYs: 2010-11& 11-12) Kasaragod Toddy Tappers and Shop Workers Co-operative Society Ltd.v. ITOO 5. The ld. CIT(A), however, without prejudice, and in the alternative, has discussed the appeal on merits as well.It is, in view of our decisionconfirming his order/s holding the appeal/sbefore

SAHADEVAN K ,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, WD-1(3), TRIVANDRUM

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

ITA 464/COCH/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Mathew JosephFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 10(37)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

condonation of delay and also an affidavit stating therein the reasons for not filing the appeal on time. The relevant portion of the affidavit filed by the assessee reads as follow:- “Shri. Sahadevan. K. Son of G. Krishnan aged 77 residing at Rohini, Aksharaveedhi lane, Pettah, Trivandrum do hereby solemnly affirm that; 1. I am assessed

SAHADEVAN K ,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, WD-1(3), TRIVANDRUM

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

ITA 116/COCH/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Mathew JosephFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 10(37)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

condonation of delay and also an affidavit stating therein the reasons for not filing the appeal on time. The relevant portion of the affidavit filed by the assessee reads as follow:- “Shri. Sahadevan. K. Son of G. Krishnan aged 77 residing at Rohini, Aksharaveedhi lane, Pettah, Trivandrum do hereby solemnly affirm that; 1. I am assessed

KATTAPPANA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,IDUKKI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, THODUPUZHA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the stay application is dismissed

ITA 706/COCH/2023[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Jun 2024

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Anil D. Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ilaiyaraja K.S., Sr. D.R
Section 119(2)(b)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80P

condoning the delay in filing the return as per the circular issued by the CBDT. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before us. 3. At the time of hearing the learned A.R. of the assessee argued that the claim of exemption

CHANDRAMOULIESWARA CHARITABLE TRUST,TRIVANDRUM vs. CIT, EXEMPTION, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 276/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Smt. Divya Ravindran, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Exemption Ward Kerala Trivandrum PAN NO : AAPTS4803C APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Smt. Divya Ravindran, A.R. Respondent by : Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing : 28.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 23.06.2025 O R D E R PERPRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER: These two appeals of the assessee are arising from the order of ld. CIT(A) dated 5.3.2024 having DIN & Order

CHANDRAMOULIESWARA CHARITABLE TRUST,TRIVANDRUM vs. CIT, EXEMPTION, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 275/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Smt. Divya Ravindran, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Exemption Ward Kerala Trivandrum PAN NO : AAPTS4803C APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Smt. Divya Ravindran, A.R. Respondent by : Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing : 28.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 23.06.2025 O R D E R PERPRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER: These two appeals of the assessee are arising from the order of ld. CIT(A) dated 5.3.2024 having DIN & Order

SAVE A FAMILY PLAN (INDIA),,KANJOOR vs. DCIT(EXEMPTION), KOCHI

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

ITA 138/COCH/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Save A Family Plan (India) Dy. Cit, Exemption Aiswaryagram, Parappuram San Juan Towers, 2Nd Floor Vs. Kanjoor - 683575 Old Railway Station Road [Pan:Aabts9439E] Kochi 682018 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Abraham J. Markose, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 260ASection 263

delay in filing appeal stands condoned by the order passed by Third Member. We now proceed to dwell into the merits of the order passed u/s. 263 of the Act. 8. The learned counsel for the assessee submits that the appellant is a charitable trust registered u/s. 12A of the Act and also enjoying registration under FCRA. The appellant trust

MAMMALASSERY MOR MICHAEL JACOBITE SYRIAN CHRISTIAN CHURCH TRUST,RAMAMANGALAM vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD 1 (1), KOCHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 204/COCH/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Apr 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2023-24 Mammalassery Mor Michael Jacobite .......... Appellant Syrin Christain Church Trust Church Junction, Ramamangalam Mammalessery, Muvattupuzha 686663 [Pan: Aagtm4862L] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Corporate Ward - 1(1), Kochi

For Appellant: Shri Ranjit R., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)

Exemption), Kochi on 19.12.2024 for condoning the delay in renewal of the exemption registration. Therefore, it is prayed that the matter

ANAKKARA FOOD PROCESSING AND EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,ANAKKARA vs. ACIT, TIRUR

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

ITA 582/COCH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

For Appellant: Shri Paulson K.P., CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 282(1)

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 5. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal exparte for non-prosecution of the appeal by the appellant. From the orders the CIT(A)’s it is clear that notices of hearing were Anakkara Food

ANAKKARA FOOD PROCESSING AND EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,EDAPPAL vs. ACIT, TIRUR

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

ITA 581/COCH/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

For Appellant: Shri Paulson K.P., CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 282(1)

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 5. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal exparte for non-prosecution of the appeal by the appellant. From the orders the CIT(A)’s it is clear that notices of hearing were Anakkara Food

KOOTHERY NARAYANAN VIJAYAN,PALAKKAD vs. ITO,NON CORPORATE WARD 2(4), KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands dismissed on the ground of limitation itself

ITA 171/COCH/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav., Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vishnu Vijayan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 271B

Exemptions), Kochi, dated 19.02.2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2016-17, against the levy of penalty u/s 271B of the Income Tax Act( herein after referred to as Act for the sake of convenience). SA Nos. 26 to 28/Coch/2025 Koothery Narayanan Vijayan 2. Since they are arising from the same order in respect of the same

KOOTHERY NARAYANAN VIJAYAN,PALAKKAD vs. ITO, NON CORPORATE WARD 2(4), KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands dismissed on the ground of limitation itself

ITA 978/COCH/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav., Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vishnu Vijayan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 147

Exemptions), Kochi, dated 19.02.2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14, to AY 2018-19, against the order of assessment framed by AO u/s 147/144 of the Income Tax Act( herein after referred to as Act for the sake of convenience). SA Nos. 31 to 36/Coch/2024 Koothery Narayanan Vijayan 2. Since they are arising from the same order in respect

KOOTHERY NARAYANAN VIJAYAN,PALAKKAD vs. ITO, NON CORPORATE WARD 2(4), KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands dismissed on the ground of limitation itself

ITA 980/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav., Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vishnu Vijayan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 147

Exemptions), Kochi, dated 19.02.2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14, to AY 2018-19, against the order of assessment framed by AO u/s 147/144 of the Income Tax Act( herein after referred to as Act for the sake of convenience). SA Nos. 31 to 36/Coch/2024 Koothery Narayanan Vijayan 2. Since they are arising from the same order in respect

KOOTHERY NARAYANAN VIJAYAN,PALAKKAD vs. ITO,NON CORPORATE WARD 2(4), KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands dismissed on the ground of limitation itself

ITA 173/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav., Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vishnu Vijayan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 271B

Exemptions), Kochi, dated 19.02.2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2016-17, against the levy of penalty u/s 271B of the Income Tax Act( herein after referred to as Act for the sake of convenience). SA Nos. 26 to 28/Coch/2025 Koothery Narayanan Vijayan 2. Since they are arising from the same order in respect of the same

KOOTHERY NARAYANAN VIJAYAN,PALAKKAD vs. ITO, NON CORPORATE WARD 2(4), KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands dismissed on the ground of limitation itself

ITA 979/COCH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav., Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vishnu Vijayan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 147

Exemptions), Kochi, dated 19.02.2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14, to AY 2018-19, against the order of assessment framed by AO u/s 147/144 of the Income Tax Act( herein after referred to as Act for the sake of convenience). SA Nos. 31 to 36/Coch/2024 Koothery Narayanan Vijayan 2. Since they are arising from the same order in respect

KOOTHERY NARAYANAN VIJAYAN,PALAKKAD vs. ITO, NON CORPORATE WARD 2(4), KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands dismissed on the ground of limitation itself

ITA 981/COCH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav., Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vishnu Vijayan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 147

Exemptions), Kochi, dated 19.02.2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14, to AY 2018-19, against the order of assessment framed by AO u/s 147/144 of the Income Tax Act( herein after referred to as Act for the sake of convenience). SA Nos. 31 to 36/Coch/2024 Koothery Narayanan Vijayan 2. Since they are arising from the same order in respect

KOOTHERY NARAYANAN VIJAYAN,PALAKKAD vs. ITO, NON CORPORATE WARD 2(4), KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands dismissed on the ground of limitation itself

ITA 977/COCH/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav., Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vishnu Vijayan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 147

Exemptions), Kochi, dated 19.02.2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14, to AY 2018-19, against the order of assessment framed by AO u/s 147/144 of the Income Tax Act( herein after referred to as Act for the sake of convenience). SA Nos. 31 to 36/Coch/2024 Koothery Narayanan Vijayan 2. Since they are arising from the same order in respect

KOOTHERY NARAYANAN VIJAYAN,PALAKKAD vs. ITO,NON CORPORATE WARD 2(4), KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands dismissed on the ground of limitation itself

ITA 172/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav., Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vishnu Vijayan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 271B

Exemptions), Kochi, dated 19.02.2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2016-17, against the levy of penalty u/s 271B of the Income Tax Act( herein after referred to as Act for the sake of convenience). SA Nos. 26 to 28/Coch/2025 Koothery Narayanan Vijayan 2. Since they are arising from the same order in respect of the same