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.

220 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 10(14)clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai1,581Delhi1,499Mumbai1,324Pune1,005Kolkata824Bangalore776Hyderabad720Jaipur515Ahmedabad507Chandigarh302Raipur292Surat287Nagpur280Visakhapatnam273Karnataka224Cochin220Indore179Amritsar175Cuttack151Lucknow108Rajkot106Panaji103Jodhpur53Patna52SC50Calcutta49Guwahati41Allahabad36Agra31Dehradun30Telangana29Varanasi19Jabalpur14Ranchi10Rajasthan7Kerala5Orissa5Himachal Pradesh4A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2Punjab & Haryana1Andhra Pradesh1R.M. LODHA ANIL R. DAVE1DIPAK MISRA R.K. AGRAWAL PRAFULLA C. PANT1Gauhati1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1

Key Topics

Condonation of Delay56Section 143(3)55Section 26344Addition to Income40Section 234E36Section 80P32Section 12A31TDS30Section 132

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 220 · Page 1 of 11

...
23
Section 153A23
Section 1123
Deduction17

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)

section 249(2)(b) within 30 days of the notice of demand relating to the assessment or penalty. It was found that in the aforesaid cases the notices of demand were duly served on the assessee as per the prescribed procedure and the records indicated that the assessee was in knowledge of the same. 3.4 In view of the above

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)

section 249(2)(b) within 30 days of the notice of demand relating to the assessment or penalty. It was found that in the aforesaid cases the notices of demand were duly served on the assessee as per the prescribed procedure and the records indicated that the assessee was in knowledge of the same. 3.4 In view of the above

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)

section 249(2)(b) within 30 days of the notice of demand relating to the assessment or penalty. It was found that in the aforesaid cases the notices of demand were duly served on the assessee as per the prescribed procedure and the records indicated that the assessee was in knowledge of the same. 3.4 In view of the above

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)

section 249(2)(b) within 30 days of the notice of demand relating to the assessment or penalty. It was found that in the aforesaid cases the notices of demand were duly served on the assessee as per the prescribed procedure and the records indicated that the assessee was in knowledge of the same. 3.4 In view of the above

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)

section 249(2)(b) within 30 days of the notice of demand relating to the assessment or penalty. It was found that in the aforesaid cases the notices of demand were duly served on the assessee as per the prescribed procedure and the records indicated that the assessee was in knowledge of the same. 3.4 In view of the above

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)

section 249(2)(b) within 30 days of the notice of demand relating to the assessment or penalty. It was found that in the aforesaid cases the notices of demand were duly served on the assessee as per the prescribed procedure and the records indicated that the assessee was in knowledge of the same. 3.4 In view of the above

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)

section 249(2)(b) within 30 days of the notice of demand relating to the assessment or penalty. It was found that in the aforesaid cases the notices of demand were duly served on the assessee as per the prescribed procedure and the records indicated that the assessee was in knowledge of the same. 3.4 In view of the above

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)

section 249(2)(b) within 30 days of the notice of demand relating to the assessment or penalty. It was found that in the aforesaid cases the notices of demand were duly served on the assessee as per the prescribed procedure and the records indicated that the assessee was in knowledge of the same. 3.4 In view of the above

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)

section 249(2)(b) within 30 days of the notice of demand relating to the assessment or penalty. It was found that in the aforesaid cases the notices of demand were duly served on the assessee as per the prescribed procedure and the records indicated that the assessee was in knowledge of the same. 3.4 In view of the above

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)

section 249(2)(b) within 30 days of the notice of demand relating to the assessment or penalty. It was found that in the aforesaid cases the notices of demand were duly served on the assessee as per the prescribed procedure and the records indicated that the assessee was in knowledge of the same. 3.4 In view of the above

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)

section 249(2)(b) within 30 days of the notice of demand relating to the assessment or penalty. It was found that in the aforesaid cases the notices of demand were duly served on the assessee as per the prescribed procedure and the records indicated that the assessee was in knowledge of the same. 3.4 In view of the above

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)

section 249(2)(b) within 30 days of the notice of demand relating to the assessment or penalty. It was found that in the aforesaid cases the notices of demand were duly served on the assessee as per the prescribed procedure and the records indicated that the assessee was in knowledge of the same. 3.4 In view of the above

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

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

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

Section 234E

14 26Q/Q1 Nalukodi 543 & 544/ 2014- 29.07.2015 28.08.2015 05.12.2018 1195 16289 C/2019 15 26Q/Q3 -do- -do- 2014- 03.08.2015 02.09.2015 05.12.2018 1190 36400 15 27Q/Q3 254892 4. Aggrieved by the orders of the CIT(A) in rejecting the assessee’s appeals in limine without condoning the delay in filing the appeals, the assessee has filed these appeals before the Tribunal

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

14 26Q/Q1 Nalukodi 543 & 544/ 2014- 29.07.2015 28.08.2015 05.12.2018 1195 16289 C/2019 15 26Q/Q3 -do- -do- 2014- 03.08.2015 02.09.2015 05.12.2018 1190 36400 15 27Q/Q3 254892 4. Aggrieved by the orders of the CIT(A) in rejecting the assessee’s appeals in limine without condoning the delay in filing the appeals, the assessee has filed these appeals before the Tribunal

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

14 26Q/Q1 Nalukodi 543 & 544/ 2014- 29.07.2015 28.08.2015 05.12.2018 1195 16289 C/2019 15 26Q/Q3 -do- -do- 2014- 03.08.2015 02.09.2015 05.12.2018 1190 36400 15 27Q/Q3 254892 4. Aggrieved by the orders of the CIT(A) in rejecting the assessee’s appeals in limine without condoning the delay in filing the appeals, the assessee has filed these appeals before the Tribunal

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

14 & 15 of form no. 35 filed on 28.09.2022 on the reasons that assessee has not shown any sufficient cause. 7. Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dated 22.12.2023, the assessee has filed the present appeal before this Tribunal. 8. None appeared on behalf of the assessee, however the assessee in his written submission stated that

SAYEGH PAINT FACTORIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,ERNAKULAM vs. CORPORATE CIR 2(1), KOCHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the stay petition is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 451/COCH/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Snr.AR
Section 144B(6)(vii)Section 148Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

condonation of delay before furnishing a tax audit report under Section 44AB. 8- The delay in filing audit report is legitimate, for reasons beyond the control of the company as the accounts are not adopted and there was a litigation pending with National Company Law Tribunal NCLT. 9-Also, reference is given to section 273B stating that no penalty shall