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.

38 results for “condonation of delay”+ Revision u/s 263clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai305Kolkata201Mumbai167Delhi119Pune101Hyderabad100Karnataka100Bangalore97Jaipur62Indore55Chandigarh55Ahmedabad53Visakhapatnam39Cochin38Panaji36Cuttack26Surat21Rajkot18Raipur17Amritsar14Nagpur14Patna12Lucknow9Agra5Jabalpur5Jodhpur4Calcutta2Varanasi2Himachal Pradesh2Dehradun2Guwahati2Rajasthan1SC1

Key Topics

Section 26399Section 143(3)44Section 13122Section 6816Addition to Income14Section 115B12Section 142A11Condonation of Delay10Section 153C

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

revised asst. Order contained mere allegations/opinion and did not contain any cogent and reliable material or evidence to come to a conclusion that the order passed by the assessing officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Aaforesaid notice dated 27.10.2016 is produced herewith and marked as Annexure-A. 4. In this connection, the appellant respectfully submits, without

THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKKODE, KOZHIKKODE vs. M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES, THRISSUR

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

Showing 1–20 of 38 · Page 1 of 2

8
Section 153A8
Revision u/s 2638
Limitation/Time-bar7
ITA 375/COCH/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

Section 131Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

revised by the Principal Commissioner. If the Principal Commissioner's order under Section 263 were allowed to prevail, then the same extemd the period of assessment, which cannot be permitted under the Act. Furthermore, even if the DVO report were in the records of the Assessing Officer, the Assessing Officer is duty bound to afford opportunity to the assessee

M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES,TRICHUR vs. THE DCIT, CALICUT

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

ITA 498/COCH/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

Section 131Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

revised by the Principal Commissioner. If the Principal Commissioner's order under Section 263 were allowed to prevail, then the same extemd the period of assessment, which cannot be permitted under the Act. Furthermore, even if the DVO report were in the records of the Assessing Officer, the Assessing Officer is duty bound to afford opportunity to the assessee

THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKKODE, KOZHIKKODE vs. M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES, THRISSUR

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

ITA 379/COCH/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

Section 131Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

revised by the Principal Commissioner. If the Principal Commissioner's order under Section 263 were allowed to prevail, then the same extemd the period of assessment, which cannot be permitted under the Act. Furthermore, even if the DVO report were in the records of the Assessing Officer, the Assessing Officer is duty bound to afford opportunity to the assessee

THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKKODE, KOZHIKKODE vs. M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES, THRISSUR

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

ITA 378/COCH/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

Section 131Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

revised by the Principal Commissioner. If the Principal Commissioner's order under Section 263 were allowed to prevail, then the same extemd the period of assessment, which cannot be permitted under the Act. Furthermore, even if the DVO report were in the records of the Assessing Officer, the Assessing Officer is duty bound to afford opportunity to the assessee

M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES,TRICHUR vs. THE DCIT(, TRIVANDRUM

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

ITA 495/COCH/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

Section 131Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

revised by the Principal Commissioner. If the Principal Commissioner's order under Section 263 were allowed to prevail, then the same extemd the period of assessment, which cannot be permitted under the Act. Furthermore, even if the DVO report were in the records of the Assessing Officer, the Assessing Officer is duty bound to afford opportunity to the assessee

M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES,TRICHUR vs. THE DCIT, CALICUT

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

ITA 497/COCH/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

Section 131Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

revised by the Principal Commissioner. If the Principal Commissioner's order under Section 263 were allowed to prevail, then the same extemd the period of assessment, which cannot be permitted under the Act. Furthermore, even if the DVO report were in the records of the Assessing Officer, the Assessing Officer is duty bound to afford opportunity to the assessee

M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES,TRICHUR vs. THE DCIT, CALICUT

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

ITA 496/COCH/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

Section 131Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

revised by the Principal Commissioner. If the Principal Commissioner's order under Section 263 were allowed to prevail, then the same extemd the period of assessment, which cannot be permitted under the Act. Furthermore, even if the DVO report were in the records of the Assessing Officer, the Assessing Officer is duty bound to afford opportunity to the assessee

M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES,TRICHUR vs. THE DCIT, CALICUT

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

ITA 499/COCH/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

Section 131Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

revised by the Principal Commissioner. If the Principal Commissioner's order under Section 263 were allowed to prevail, then the same extemd the period of assessment, which cannot be permitted under the Act. Furthermore, even if the DVO report were in the records of the Assessing Officer, the Assessing Officer is duty bound to afford opportunity to the assessee

THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKKODE, KOZHIKKODE vs. M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES, THRISSUR

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

ITA 374/COCH/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

Section 131Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

revised by the Principal Commissioner. If the Principal Commissioner's order under Section 263 were allowed to prevail, then the same extemd the period of assessment, which cannot be permitted under the Act. Furthermore, even if the DVO report were in the records of the Assessing Officer, the Assessing Officer is duty bound to afford opportunity to the assessee

THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKKODE, KOZHIKKODE vs. M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES, THRISSUR

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

ITA 376/COCH/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

Section 131Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

revised by the Principal Commissioner. If the Principal Commissioner's order under Section 263 were allowed to prevail, then the same extemd the period of assessment, which cannot be permitted under the Act. Furthermore, even if the DVO report were in the records of the Assessing Officer, the Assessing Officer is duty bound to afford opportunity to the assessee

THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKKODE, KOZHIKKODE vs. M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES, THRISSUR

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

ITA 377/COCH/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

Section 131Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

revised by the Principal Commissioner. If the Principal Commissioner's order under Section 263 were allowed to prevail, then the same extemd the period of assessment, which cannot be permitted under the Act. Furthermore, even if the DVO report were in the records of the Assessing Officer, the Assessing Officer is duty bound to afford opportunity to the assessee

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

revision u/s 263 of the I.T.Act. It was submitted that the delay in filing the appeal had occurred out of above bonafides mistake and same be condoned

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

revision u/s 263 of the I.T.Act. It was submitted that the delay in filing the appeal had occurred out of above bonafides mistake and same be condoned

M/S.OBERON EDIFICES & ESTATES P. LTD,,KOCHI vs. THE PR.CIT,, TRIVANDRUM

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

ITA 361/COCH/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. No. 361/Coch/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Oberon Edifices & Estates Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Oberon Mall, Income-Tax, Trivandrum. Nh Bye-Pass, Edapally, Kochi-682 024. [Pan:Aaaco 7942E]

Section 263

delay in filing the appeal before us and hence, we condone the same and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4 I.T.A. No./361/C/2017 2. On merits, the assessee has challenged the jurisdiction of the CIT to pass order u/s. 263 of the Act. The assessee has also challenged the following directions of the CIT: A From out of various sources

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

SUPRIYA ENTERPRISES,MANJERI, MALAPPURAM vs. THE ITO, TIRUR

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 301/COCH/2020[2015-16 ]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Dec 2022

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalm/S. Supriya Enterprises Principal Commissioner Of 16,263, Calicut Road Income Tax Vs. Manjeri, Malappuram 676121 Kozhikode

For Appellant: Shri Shaji Poulose, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 44ASection 68

u/s 68 of the Act. 6. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer is hereby directed to collect the demand expeditiously.” 3. We next find that the assessee appears to have filed its additional evidence before the tribunal. And that the earlier learned coordinate bench’s order dated 17.03.2022 had sought for a remand report. The same stands filed by the department

MALLELIL INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, THIRUVALLA

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

ITA 787/COCH/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2015-16 Mallelil Industries Pvt. Ltd. .......... Appellant Attachakkal P.O., Pathanamthitta 689691 [Pan: Aafcm0761Q] Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Thiruvalla .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Surendran, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 24.08.2022 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Company Incorporated Under The Provisions Of Companies Act, 1956. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Manufacture Of Rock Aggregates & Running A Quarry. The Return Of Income For Ay 2015-16 Was Fled On 22.09.2015 Declaring Income Of Rs. 2,54,10,720/-. Survey

For Appellant: Shri Surendran, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 133ASection 263Section 271(1)(c)

revised consequent to detection made by the department during the course of survey proceedings based on the direction of the ld. PCIT in the order u/s. 263 of the Act. A penalty 3 Mallelil Industries Pvt. Ltd. of Rs. 56,77,875/- was levied u/s. 271(1)(c) vide order dated 12.01.2022. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before

M/S. ASPINWALL & CO. LTD,COCHIN vs. THE DCIT, COCHIN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 277/COCH/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P. K. Bansal & Shri George George K.Assessment Year:2011- 12

Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(1)Section 263

condone the delay. 4. Ground Nos. 4 to 6 taken by the assessee relate to the merit of the issue in respect of which the CIT has invoked the jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. We noted that the CIT in this case has not decided the issue on merit but has simply set aside the order

SHRI. SANTHAKUMAR DAMODARAN NADAR,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, WARD -1(3), TRIVANDRUM

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

ITA 950/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Cochin20 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Soundararajan K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. R.Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Sri. Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

revision had been appealed against. It was only on contacting a senior Chartered Accountant (again, not named) that filing an appeal against the impugned order was advised, explaining the delay. This is, clearly, grossly inadequate and short of the ‘sufficient cause’ that must suffuse the delay for it to merit condonation. True, an Santhakumar Damodaran Nadar v. ITO assessee