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.

67 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 10(34)clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai777Delhi700Mumbai557Kolkata339Pune253Bangalore220Surat201Hyderabad195Ahmedabad193Jaipur161Karnataka145Indore135Chandigarh121Raipur114Amritsar111Nagpur103Visakhapatnam80Panaji77Cochin67Lucknow65Cuttack56Calcutta38Rajkot36Jodhpur35SC28Varanasi19Telangana17Patna17Allahabad14Guwahati10Jabalpur8Dehradun6Rajasthan6Agra3Orissa3Andhra Pradesh2Ranchi1Himachal Pradesh1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Kerala1

Key Topics

Section 234E43Section 19234Section 20033Section 206C33Section 143(3)31Limitation/Time-bar27Addition to Income25Section 80P(2)(a)24Section 200A

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) that constitutes an inordinate delay. 7.6. Since the reasons mentioned by the appellant are not satisfactory for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, it is evident that appellant had no cause for not filing the appeal in time. 7.7 In the case of Baroda Rayon Corporation Ltd (Gujarat 87 STC 266), Baldeo Lai Roy Vs State

Showing 1–20 of 67 · Page 1 of 4

24
Condonation of Delay22
Section 25016
Deduction16

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

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

ITA 201/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

34,640 2014-2015 Q1 21,250 4. Aggrieved by the orders passed u/s 200A of the I.T.Act, for various quarters levying fees u/s 234E of the I.T.Act, the assessee preferred appeals before the first appellate authority. All the appeals filed before the first appellate authority were 3 ITA Nos.200 to 203/Coch/2021. Sri.Sabir Ali. barred by limitation. The assessee

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

34,640 2014-2015 Q1 21,250 4. Aggrieved by the orders passed u/s 200A of the I.T.Act, for various quarters levying fees u/s 234E of the I.T.Act, the assessee preferred appeals before the first appellate authority. All the appeals filed before the first appellate authority were 3 ITA Nos.200 to 203/Coch/2021. Sri.Sabir Ali. barred by limitation. The assessee

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

34,640 2014-2015 Q1 21,250 4. Aggrieved by the orders passed u/s 200A of the I.T.Act, for various quarters levying fees u/s 234E of the I.T.Act, the assessee preferred appeals before the first appellate authority. All the appeals filed before the first appellate authority were 3 ITA Nos.200 to 203/Coch/2021. Sri.Sabir Ali. barred by limitation. The assessee

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

34,640 2014-2015 Q1 21,250 4. Aggrieved by the orders passed u/s 200A of the I.T.Act, for various quarters levying fees u/s 234E of the I.T.Act, the assessee preferred appeals before the first appellate authority. All the appeals filed before the first appellate authority were 3 ITA Nos.200 to 203/Coch/2021. Sri.Sabir Ali. barred by limitation. The assessee

M/S THE KASARAGOD TODDY TAPPERS AND SHOP WORKERS CO-OP SOCIETY LTD,KASARGOD vs. ITO WARD 1, KASARGOD

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are dismissed as not maintainable

ITA 909/COCH/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Aby T.Varkey

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 260A(2)(a)Section 5

10 of its order, the Hon'ble Court entered it’s findings at page 13 of it’s judgement, which we reproduce hereunder for ready reference: - “13.We have also gone through the bye-laws of the society. The factual findings of the Assessing Officer, which was confirmed by the appellate Tribunal show that though membership of the society is confined

M/S THE KASARAGOD TODDY TAPPERS AND SHOP WORKERS CO-OP SOCIETY LTD,KASARGOD vs. ITO WARD -1, KASARGOD

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are dismissed as not maintainable

ITA 908/COCH/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Aby T.Varkey

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 260A(2)(a)Section 5

10 of its order, the Hon'ble Court entered it’s findings at page 13 of it’s judgement, which we reproduce hereunder for ready reference: - “13.We have also gone through the bye-laws of the society. The factual findings of the Assessing Officer, which was confirmed by the appellate Tribunal show that though membership of the society is confined

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

KATHIKODE CHARITABLE TRUST,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER., THRISSUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes, and it’s stay petitions dismissed as infructuous

ITA 947/COCH/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Jojo, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2

section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), raising demands, including interest, at Rs.28.47 lakhs and Rs.37.75 lakhs for the two consecutive years respectively. The assessee ITA Nos. 947 & 948/Coch/2022 (AY : 2014-15) Kathikode Charitable Trust v. ITO admittedly did not act thereon, stating that it was ‘awaiting’ – whatever that would mean; Sh. Jojo, the learned counsel

KATHIKODE CHARITABLE TRUST,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THRISSUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes, and it’s stay petitions dismissed as infructuous

ITA 948/COCH/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Jojo, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2

section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), raising demands, including interest, at Rs.28.47 lakhs and Rs.37.75 lakhs for the two consecutive years respectively. The assessee ITA Nos. 947 & 948/Coch/2022 (AY : 2014-15) Kathikode Charitable Trust v. ITO admittedly did not act thereon, stating that it was ‘awaiting’ – whatever that would mean; Sh. Jojo, the learned counsel

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

section 119; or (d) the order has not been passed in accordance with any decision which is prejudicial to the assessee, rendered by the jurisdictional High Court or Supreme Court in the case of the assessee or any other person. 4. A perusal of the Board Circular (F.No.225/402/2018/ITA.II, dated 28.11.2018), called for from the parties, and placed on record

VENUS INDUSTRIES,KODUNGALLUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 2(1), THRISSUR

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

ITA 402/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Binisha Baby, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 144Section 250Section 270ASection 68

condone the delay of 34 days in filing the appeal and proceed to adjudicate case on merits. 8. It is submitted that the lower authorities fell in error in making addition on account of difference in valuation of closing stock of Rs. 4,05,303/- and addition of loss of Rs. 33,90,756/- for failure of the assessee

VENUS INDUSTRIES,KODUNGALLUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 2(1), THRISSUR

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

ITA 401/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Binisha Baby, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 144Section 250Section 270ASection 68

condone the delay of 34 days in filing the appeal and proceed to adjudicate case on merits. 8. It is submitted that the lower authorities fell in error in making addition on account of difference in valuation of closing stock of Rs. 4,05,303/- and addition of loss of Rs. 33,90,756/- for failure of the assessee

P. SURENDRAN,TRIVANDRUM vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(2), TRIVANDRUM

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

ITA 978/COCH/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm P. Surendran Sukanya Bhavan Asst. Cit-1(2) Vadayakkadu, Kunnukuzhy, P.O., Thiruvananthapuram Vs. Thiruvananthapuram-695 035

For Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 40A(3)Section 40a

Delay condoned. 4. The brief facts are that the assessee is an individual and had filed his return of income on 30.11.2014, declaring total income at Rs.1,75,34,220/-. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were duly issued and served upon by the assessee

INDITRADE BUSINESS CONSULTANTS LIMITED,ERNAKULAM vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), KOCHI

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

ITA 655/COCH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Sri.Aneesh Vishwanthan, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 250Section 69C

condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits. 3. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: – “1. Incorrect addition made under section 69C of the Income tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") in relation to purchases made totalling to Rs. 3,34,87,077. 1.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income

THE PAVARATTY SERVICE CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO 3918,PAVARATTY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GURUVAYUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 448/COCH/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Aug 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ramdas M, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

condone the delay of 28 days and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The issue in the present appeal relates to eligibility of the appellant cooperative society for deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. The AO as well as learned CIT(A) denied

THE PAVARATTY SERVICE CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO 3918,PAVARATTY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GURUVAYUR, THRISSUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 479/COCH/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Aug 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ramdas M, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

condone the delay of 28 days and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The issue in the present appeal relates to eligibility of the appellant cooperative society for deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. The AO as well as learned CIT(A) denied

THE PAVARATTY SERVICE CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO 3918,PAVARATTY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GURUVAYUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 478/COCH/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Aug 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ramdas M, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

condone the delay of 28 days and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The issue in the present appeal relates to eligibility of the appellant cooperative society for deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. The AO as well as learned CIT(A) denied

THE PAVARATTY SERVICE CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO 3918,PAVARATTY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GURUVAYUR, THRISSUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 480/COCH/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Aug 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ramdas M, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

condone the delay of 28 days and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The issue in the present appeal relates to eligibility of the appellant cooperative society for deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. The AO as well as learned CIT(A) denied

M/S.PATHANMTHITTA DIST. CO-OP BANK LTD,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE DCIT, THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as not maintainable and, in any case, without merit

ITA 431/COCH/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Daspathanamthitta District Dy. Cit, Circle- 1 Co-Op Bank Ltd. Thiruvalla Near Ksrtc Bus Stand Vs. Mylapara Road Pathanamthitta 689645 [Pan:Aabfp9182H] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Aswin Gopakumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

condonation of delay despite it having been admitted. 4. The first issue on merits is the disallowance of provision for expenses, at Rs. 284.48 lacs, claimed by the assessee, a district co-operative bank registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (Kerala Act), through debit of it’s Profit and Loss Account (operating statement) for the year, being