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.

363 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 10(5)clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai2,611Mumbai2,460Delhi2,221Kolkata1,471Pune1,362Bangalore1,257Hyderabad959Ahmedabad904Jaipur764Surat436Chandigarh426Nagpur367Cochin363Raipur360Visakhapatnam333Indore323Lucknow279Amritsar274Karnataka254Rajkot243Cuttack197Patna153Panaji136Agra82Guwahati77Jodhpur69Calcutta67Dehradun61SC56Allahabad52Telangana38Varanasi32Jabalpur31Ranchi25Rajasthan9Orissa7Kerala7Punjab & Haryana5Himachal 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

Condonation of Delay47TDS37Section 143(3)33Section 80P32Section 234E31Addition to Income30Section 19228Section 20027Section 206C

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 363 · Page 1 of 19

...
27
Section 25026
Deduction25
Limitation/Time-bar20

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 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 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 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.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 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.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

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 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 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

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

5 of 16 beyond the control of the assessee, he prayed for the delay to be condoned. 2.2 The Ld.DR though objected however could not controvert the reasoning given by the Ld.AR for the delay that was caused in filing the present appeal. We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in the light of records placed before

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

5. At the outset, the understanding of the legal complexities by the professionals itself is not a sufficient or reasonable cause for not filing the appeal late by a long period of 1964 days. Such an inordinate delay of 1964 days has to be satisfactorily explained which has not been done so in the present case. Moreover, there

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

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

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 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

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