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.

241 results for “condonation of delay”+ Penaltyclear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai1,436Mumbai1,386Delhi951Pune751Kolkata586Ahmedabad527Jaipur450Bangalore402Hyderabad367Chandigarh243Surat241Cochin241Indore184Karnataka175Raipur154Lucknow154Nagpur153Visakhapatnam141Cuttack132Rajkot118Amritsar94Patna75Agra63Calcutta54Guwahati52Panaji31Ranchi31Allahabad30Dehradun29SC27Jabalpur25Jodhpur20Varanasi12Telangana12Orissa4Punjab & Haryana2Himachal Pradesh2Rajasthan1VIKRAMAJIT SEN SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Condonation of Delay61Penalty42TDS37Addition to Income35Section 133(6)32Section 20027Section 206C27Section 19227Section 201(1)23

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

penalty orders were to be prepared, vetted and filed. Considering this, the delay of 71 days from the date of receipt of assessment order by Smt. Susan Thomas's husband is reasonable. Even if the delay is taken as 510 days if the date of service of orders on ex-employee is treated as date of receipt of order

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

Showing 1–20 of 241 · Page 1 of 13

...
Limitation/Time-bar21
Section 271B20
Section 271(1)(c)18
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

penalty orders were to be prepared, vetted and filed. Considering this, the delay of 71 days from the date of receipt of assessment order by Smt. Susan Thomas's husband is reasonable. Even if the delay is taken as 510 days if the date of service of orders on ex-employee is treated as date of receipt of order

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

penalty orders were to be prepared, vetted and filed. Considering this, the delay of 71 days from the date of receipt of assessment order by Smt. Susan Thomas's husband is reasonable. Even if the delay is taken as 510 days if the date of service of orders on ex-employee is treated as date of receipt of order

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

penalty orders were to be prepared, vetted and filed. Considering this, the delay of 71 days from the date of receipt of assessment order by Smt. Susan Thomas's husband is reasonable. Even if the delay is taken as 510 days if the date of service of orders on ex-employee is treated as date of receipt of order

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

penalty orders were to be prepared, vetted and filed. Considering this, the delay of 71 days from the date of receipt of assessment order by Smt. Susan Thomas's husband is reasonable. Even if the delay is taken as 510 days if the date of service of orders on ex-employee is treated as date of receipt of order

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

penalty orders were to be prepared, vetted and filed. Considering this, the delay of 71 days from the date of receipt of assessment order by Smt. Susan Thomas's husband is reasonable. Even if the delay is taken as 510 days if the date of service of orders on ex-employee is treated as date of receipt of order

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD(KURIANNOOR BRANCH), KUMBANAD P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ITO (TDS), ALAPPUZHA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed as

ITA 280/COCH/2019[2013-14 (27Q-Q2)]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Jul 2019

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

Section 200ASection 234E

delay had not caused any loss to the revenue and imposing the penalty will create a genuine hardship to staff members of the Bank and also to the assessee. Thus, it was requested to condone

CSB BANK LTD (FORMERLY THE CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD(THUMPAMON BRANCH),PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ACIT(TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 526/COCH/2019[2013-14(26Q-Q4)]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Oct 2019

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

Section 234E

delay has not caused any loss to the revenue. 4. Imposing the penalty will create a genuine hardship to staff members of the Bank and also to the appellant. 5. We humbly request you to condone