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.

262 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 10(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai2,625Mumbai2,488Delhi2,217Kolkata1,482Pune1,363Bangalore1,263Hyderabad918Ahmedabad839Jaipur748Surat427Chandigarh423Nagpur366Raipur360Visakhapatnam328Indore309Amritsar272Lucknow272Cochin262Karnataka256Rajkot232Cuttack188Patna155Panaji136Agra75Calcutta74Guwahati68Jodhpur68Dehradun60SC56Allahabad42Telangana39Varanasi32Jabalpur32Ranchi23Rajasthan9Orissa7Kerala7Punjab & Haryana7Himachal Pradesh4Andhra Pradesh3A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2DIPAK MISRA R.K. AGRAWAL PRAFULLA C. PANT1R.M. LODHA ANIL R. DAVE1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 80P60Condonation of Delay49Section 143(3)43Section 80P(2)(a)42Section 14837Deduction36Section 234E35Section 25030Addition to Income

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)

1 . 24. Mr. Rana Mukherjee, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the Petitioners strenuously argued, and rightly, that the High Court had erred in holding that delay beyond 120 days in filing an appeal under 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

Showing 1–20 of 262 · Page 1 of 14

...
29
TDS27
Limitation/Time-bar26
Section 200A19

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

DCIT, TRIVANDRUM vs. BRAHMOS AEROSPACE( THIRUVANANTHAPURAM) LTD, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal filedby

ITA 742/COCH/2019[2002-03]Status: HeardITAT Cochin23 Feb 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ramit Kochar, Am Deputy Commissioner Brahmos Aerospace Of Income Tax, (Thiruvananthapuram) Ltd., Circle-1(1), V. Chackai, Thiruvananthapuram Beach Post, Kerala Tiruvananthapuram, Kerala Pan – Aabck2217K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Smt. Jamunna Devi, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Abraham Joseph Markos, Adv
Section 139(1)Section 139(3)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 80

1), while filing return of income on 31.10.2002. The Explanation to Section 139(9) clearly stipulates that tax-audit report as well audited accounts are to be accompanied with return of income , otherwise return will be a defective return and consequences are also stipulated u/s 139(9) of the 1961 Act. However, the provision of Section

M/S SANTHIMADOM AYURNIKETHAN HEALTH RESORT & RESEARCH INSTITUTE TRUST,KOCHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 917/COCH/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 May 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 153ASection 153CSection 234A

condoning the delay, admit the appeal for being decided on merits. 3. It was, at the outset, submitted by Shri Joseph, the learned counsel for the assessee, that only the grounds of appeal in relation to levy of interest u/ss. 234A and 234B of the Act are being pressed. And toward which he would take us through the appeal memo

M/S SANTHIMADOM AYURNIKETHAN HEALTH RESORT & RESEARCH INSTITUTE TRUST,KOCHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 919/COCH/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 153ASection 153CSection 234A

condoning the delay, admit the appeal for being decided on merits. 3. It was, at the outset, submitted by Shri Joseph, the learned counsel for the assessee, that only the grounds of appeal in relation to levy of interest u/ss. 234A and 234B of the Act are being pressed. And toward which he would take us through the appeal memo

M/S SANTHIMADOM AYURNIKETHAN HEALTH RESORT & RESEARCH INSTITUTE TRUST,KOCHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 918/COCH/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 May 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 153ASection 153CSection 234A

condoning the delay, admit the appeal for being decided on merits. 3. It was, at the outset, submitted by Shri Joseph, the learned counsel for the assessee, that only the grounds of appeal in relation to levy of interest u/ss. 234A and 234B of the Act are being pressed. And toward which he would take us through the appeal memo

M/S SANTHIMADOM AYURNIKETHAN HEALTH RESORT & RESEARCH INSTITUTE TRUST,ERNAKULAM vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 916/COCH/2022[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 May 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 153ASection 153CSection 234A

condoning the delay, admit the appeal for being decided on merits. 3. It was, at the outset, submitted by Shri Joseph, the learned counsel for the assessee, that only the grounds of appeal in relation to levy of interest u/ss. 234A and 234B of the Act are being pressed. And toward which he would take us through the appeal memo

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THRISSUR vs. THE CSB BANK LTD, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 542/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Satish Modi, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 144BSection 147Section 250

condone the delay of 60 days in filing the present appeal and proceed to examine the grounds raised in the present appeal. 2. The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal : “1. The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], New Delhi in DIN and Order No. DIN ITBA/APLS/S/250/2024-25/1074993866(1) dated 25.03.2025 against assessment

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

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

ERAMALLOOR SERVICE CO-PERATIVE BANK LTDS NO.1175,CHERTHALA vs. ITO, WARD-1, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 820/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Sri.C.A.Jojo, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 142(1)(i)Section 144Section 250Section 80A(5)Section 80P

delay process, and therefore, the assessee lost its opportunity to make a valid claim for deduction. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 6. During the hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (“learned AR”) submitted that the assessee being a co-operative society is not required to file its return of income, and thus the filing

THE KATTOOR SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), THRISSUR, THRISSUR

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

ITA 561/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Amaljith P.J., CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69ASection 80P

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 8. The learned counsel for the assessee contended that the addition made u/s. 69A of the Act would only enhance the business profit of the appellant, such business profits qualifies for deduction Kattoor Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. u/s. 80P in terms of CBDT Circular No. 37/2016 dated

THE KATTOOR SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), THRISSUR, THRISSUR

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

ITA 559/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Amaljith P.J., CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69ASection 80P

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 8. The learned counsel for the assessee contended that the addition made u/s. 69A of the Act would only enhance the business profit of the appellant, such business profits qualifies for deduction Kattoor Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. u/s. 80P in terms of CBDT Circular No. 37/2016 dated

PANTHEERANKAVE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK,KOZHIKODE vs. ITO,WARD -2(3), KOZHIKODE

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

ITA 368/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2017-18 Pantheerankav Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant Olavanna, Kozhikode 673019 [Pan: Aaaap6394F] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Kozhikode .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Arun Raj S., Advocate Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 04.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.06.2025 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 12.12.2024 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Appellant Is A Co-Operative Society Registered Under The Kerala State Co-Operative Societies Act, 1969. It Is Classified As A Primary Agricultural Credit Co-Operative Society. The Appellant Had Not Filed Return Of Income Under The Provisions Of Section 139(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) For Ay 2017-18. Based On The Information That The Appellant Made

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80P

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 6. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. Admittedly, the appellant society had not filed return of income for the assessment year under consideration. Therefore, it can be said that there was no claim made in the return of income. In the absence of claim

SHOBHA RAMAKRISHNANA NAIR,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO, WARD 2, ALUVA

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

ITA 810/COCH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17 Shobha Ramakrishnan Nair Karthika Sebipuram Ito Ernakulam Ward-2 Vs. Manjapra So Aluva Kerala 683581 Pan No :Awrpr5406L Appellant Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 30.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.04.2025 O R D E R Per Keshav Dubey: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 22.12.2023 Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1059003947(1) For The Ay 2016- 17 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 250

section 143 (3) of the Act on 15-11-2019, by the Income-tax officer, Ward 3 , Aluva, on a total income of Rs. 3,15,580/-, accepting the income returned, which included commission from sale of stamps. 8.1 Further, the assessee stated that the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC grossly erred in not condoning the delay of 5 months

THE CHORODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD, LL139,CHORODE vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 122/COCH/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Nov 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Sri.V.S.Narayanan, CAFor Respondent: Dr.S.Pandian, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 246Section 246ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

condonation of delay since assessee's application for rectification of the intimation under section 143(1) of the Act has been filed within time and same is pending disposal. With the above said observation, the grounds of the assessee are rejected." 5.2.5 The above decision was relied upon by the Hon'ble ITAT, New Delhi in the case of Orient

THE CHORODE SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD LL139,CHORODE vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 123/COCH/2024[AY 2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Nov 2024

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Sri.V.S.Narayanan, CAFor Respondent: Dr.S.Pandian, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 246Section 246ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

condonation of delay since assessee's application for rectification of the intimation under section 143(1) of the Act has been filed within time and same is pending disposal. With the above said observation, the grounds of the assessee are rejected." 5.2.5 The above decision was relied upon by the Hon'ble ITAT, New Delhi in the case of Orient

SABIR ALI,KANNUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GHAZIABAD

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

ITA 200/COCH/2021[2013-2014]Status: HeardITAT Cochin20 May 2022AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

For Appellant: Sri.R Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamunna Devi, Sr.DR
Section 200ASection 234E

1. The order of the Officer is against law facts and circumstances of the case. 2 ITA Nos.200 to 203/Coch/2021. Sri.Sabir Ali. 2. The CIT(Appeals) is not justified in not condoning the delay as in similar cases, the department has condoned such delay in the matter of 234E. 3. The CIT(Appeals) has erred in sustaining the late fees

SABIR ALI,KANNUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GHAZIABAD

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

ITA 202/COCH/2021[2013-2014]Status: HeardITAT Cochin20 May 2022AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

For Appellant: Sri.R Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamunna Devi, Sr.DR
Section 200ASection 234E

1. The order of the Officer is against law facts and circumstances of the case. 2 ITA Nos.200 to 203/Coch/2021. Sri.Sabir Ali. 2. The CIT(Appeals) is not justified in not condoning the delay as in similar cases, the department has condoned such delay in the matter of 234E. 3. The CIT(Appeals) has erred in sustaining the late fees

SABIR ALI,KANNUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GHAZIABAD

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

ITA 203/COCH/2021[2014-2015]Status: HeardITAT Cochin20 May 2022AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

For Appellant: Sri.R Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamunna Devi, Sr.DR
Section 200ASection 234E

1. The order of the Officer is against law facts and circumstances of the case. 2 ITA Nos.200 to 203/Coch/2021. Sri.Sabir Ali. 2. The CIT(Appeals) is not justified in not condoning the delay as in similar cases, the department has condoned such delay in the matter of 234E. 3. The CIT(Appeals) has erred in sustaining the late fees