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.

376 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 10clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai2,622Mumbai2,470Delhi2,235Pune1,676Kolkata1,442Bangalore1,263Hyderabad1,102Ahmedabad954Jaipur800Chandigarh487Surat447Visakhapatnam389Cochin376Nagpur374Raipur362Indore301Amritsar294Lucknow289Karnataka256Rajkot234Cuttack223Patna153Panaji136Agra89Calcutta82Jodhpur80Guwahati78Dehradun61SC56Allahabad52Telangana40Jabalpur34Varanasi32Ranchi29Rajasthan9Orissa7Kerala7Punjab & Haryana7Himachal Pradesh4Andhra Pradesh3A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2R.M. LODHA ANIL R. DAVE1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1DIPAK MISRA R.K. AGRAWAL PRAFULLA C. PANT1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 80P55Condonation of Delay46Section 143(3)40Section 234E39TDS33Section 20031Addition to Income31Section 25028Section 192

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)

Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act was not condonable. 25. This Court is, however, not inclined to entertain this Special Leave Petition since the Petitioners have failed to show sufficient cause for the condonation of the inordinate delay of 337 days in filing the Appeal in the High Court. Moreover, there are no grounds for interference with

Showing 1–20 of 376 · Page 1 of 19

...
28
Deduction28
Section 206C27
Section 26323

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)

10, 2010-11, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The order passed by the CIT(A) is against equity and justice. 2. The CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact that the appellant had received the assessment orders only 16/03/2018 and the appeals were filed I.T.A

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)

10, 2010-11, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The order passed by the CIT(A) is against equity and justice. 2. The CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact that the appellant had received the assessment orders only 16/03/2018 and the appeals were filed I.T.A

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)

10, 2010-11, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The order passed by the CIT(A) is against equity and justice. 2. The CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact that the appellant had received the assessment orders only 16/03/2018 and the appeals were filed I.T.A

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)

10, 2010-11, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The order passed by the CIT(A) is against equity and justice. 2. The CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact that the appellant had received the assessment orders only 16/03/2018 and the appeals were filed I.T.A

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)

10, 2010-11, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The order passed by the CIT(A) is against equity and justice. 2. The CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact that the appellant had received the assessment orders only 16/03/2018 and the appeals were filed I.T.A

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)

10, 2010-11, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The order passed by the CIT(A) is against equity and justice. 2. The CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact that the appellant had received the assessment orders only 16/03/2018 and the appeals were filed I.T.A

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)

10, 2010-11, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The order passed by the CIT(A) is against equity and justice. 2. The CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact that the appellant had received the assessment orders only 16/03/2018 and the appeals were filed I.T.A

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)

10, 2010-11, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The order passed by the CIT(A) is against equity and justice. 2. The CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact that the appellant had received the assessment orders only 16/03/2018 and the appeals were filed I.T.A

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)

10, 2010-11, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The order passed by the CIT(A) is against equity and justice. 2. The CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact that the appellant had received the assessment orders only 16/03/2018 and the appeals were filed I.T.A

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)

10, 2010-11, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The order passed by the CIT(A) is against equity and justice. 2. The CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact that the appellant had received the assessment orders only 16/03/2018 and the appeals were filed I.T.A

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)

10, 2010-11, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The order passed by the CIT(A) is against equity and justice. 2. The CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact that the appellant had received the assessment orders only 16/03/2018 and the appeals were filed I.T.A

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)

10, 2010-11, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The order passed by the CIT(A) is against equity and justice. 2. The CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact that the appellant had received the assessment orders only 16/03/2018 and the appeals were filed I.T.A

M/S KADIRUR SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,KANNUR vs. ITO WARD 2, KANNUR

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

ITA 104/COCH/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Kadirur Service Co- Operative Bank Ltd., The Income Tax Kadirur, Officer, Thalassery, Ward – 2, Kannur, Kannur. Kerala – 670 642. Vs. Pan: Aaffk6859E Appellant Respondent : Shri Arun Raj .S, Assessee By Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ilayaraja K.S, Sr. Dr

For Respondent: Shri Arun Raj .S
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 51Section 80p

10. We also refer to the decision of Hon’ble Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Bajaj Hindusthan Ltd. v. Jt. CIT (AT) reported in 277 ITR 1 condoned the delay of 180 days when, the appeal was filed after the pronouncement of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is also to be noted

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

section 12A(a) to the Kerala Cricket Association. If they are vigilant enough that the denial of the registration benefit has so much injurious effect on their interest, then they should have approached the Tribunal within the reasonable time. The flimsy grounds stated in the petition are not sufficient reasons so as to condone the delay. As rightly contended

CELESTIAL INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD,AMBALAMUGAL vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), ERNALUAM

In the result, appeal is "Dismissed"

ITA 160/COCH/2024[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhcelestial Infrastructure (P) Ltd. Dcit, Corporate Circle - 1(1) Aiswarya Towers Cr Building, Is Press Road Hoc Junction, Ambalamugal Vs. Kochi 682018 Ernakulam 682302 [Pan: Aaccc6737F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Thomas Thomas, CAFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 249Section 249(3)Section 250

10 years). 7.4 In view of the delay observed in filing of appeal, deficiency letters have been issued to the appellant on 12.01.2023 informing that appeal is delayed and application for condonation of delay is not filed. Appellant has submitted reply vide letter dated 16.01.2024. The same is reproduced as under: BEFORE THE ADDL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS

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

section was pending before various High Courts at that time. 3. The appellant has not derived any benefit whatsoever by not filing the quarterly TDS statement in time as the amount of TDS was duly deposited in the Government treasury within the prescribed time and such delay has not caused any loss to the revenue. 4. Imposing the penalty will

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 525/COCH/2019[2013-14(24 Q-Q4)]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Oct 2019

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

Section 234E

section was pending before various High Courts at that time. 3. The appellant has not derived any benefit whatsoever by not filing the quarterly TDS statement in time as the amount of TDS was duly deposited in the Government treasury within the prescribed time and such delay has not caused any loss to the revenue. 4. Imposing the penalty will

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 527/COCH/2019[2013-14(27Q-Q3)]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Oct 2019

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

Section 234E

section was pending before various High Courts at that time. 3. The appellant has not derived any benefit whatsoever by not filing the quarterly TDS statement in time as the amount of TDS was duly deposited in the Government treasury within the prescribed time and such delay has not caused any loss to the revenue. 4. Imposing the penalty will

SRI.KRISHNAN ACHARY,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ITO, WD-3,, THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 432/COCH/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George George K.

Section 10Section 148

condone the delay of 88 days and proceed to dispose off the appeal on merits. 3 I.T.A. No.432Coch/2018 3. The solitary issue that is raised is whether the CIT(A) is justified in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in disallowing the claim of deduction u/s. 10(10C) of the I.T. Act. 4. The brief facts of the case