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.

8 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 10Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai96Delhi90Mumbai73Hyderabad61Kolkata57Ahmedabad51Raipur44Bangalore44Pune39Jaipur36Visakhapatnam14Chandigarh11Rajkot9Cochin8Surat7Amritsar5Cuttack5Guwahati5Lucknow5Nagpur4Patna4Jodhpur3Agra3Calcutta2Telangana2Varanasi2Indore2Karnataka2Allahabad1Jabalpur1SC1Orissa1

Key Topics

Section 10B29Section 10A15Deduction8Section 80P6Section 143(3)4Section 2533Section 143Section 10A(2)(i)3Exemption3Section 10A(5)

THE ACIT,CIR-1(1),, TRIVANDRUM vs. M/S.US TECHNOLOGY INTERNATIONAL P. LTD, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, both appeal of the Revenue and the Cross Objection of the

ITA 514/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 10ASection 10A(5)Section 253(2)

section 10A(5) of the Income-tax Act stipulates that the deduction u/s. 10A shall not be admissible 2 I.T(TP).A. No. 514Coch/2019 & C.O. No.47/Coch/2019 unless the assessee furnished Form No. 56F alongwith the return of income, by which the tax effect is Rs.14,56,56,499/-. Hence, vide this order in C. No. 404/J/8/2018 dated 17/04/2018, the Principal

THE ITO, COCHIN vs. M/S.PESCAINDE, COCHIN

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as the Cross Objections of the

2
ITA 227/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: Disposed
ITAT Cochin
22 Jul 2019
AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 10Section 10ASection 10BSection 143(3)Section 253Section 263

condone the delay of three days in filing the appeals and admit the appeals for adjudication. 3. The Revenue has raised the following common grounds of appeals: 1. The CIT(A) erred in allowing the assessee’s claim of deduction u/s. 10B in which the assessee must fulfil two conditions i.e., it should be approved by Deputy Director, STPI

THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM vs. M/S. PARAGON BIOMEDICAL INDIA (P) LTD, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal filed

ITA 249/COCH/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri P B Bansal & George George K, Jm

Section 10ASection 10A(2)(i)Section 10BSection 14

section 10A of the Act. It is ordered accordingly.” 4.6 In view of the above order of the Co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal, we hold that the CIT(A) is justified in allowing the alternative plea of the assessee u/s. 10A of the I.T. Act. It is ordered accordingly. 5. In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM vs. M/S. PARAGON BIOMEDICAL INDIA (P) LTD, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal filed

ITA 334/COCH/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri P B Bansal & George George K, Jm

Section 10ASection 10A(2)(i)Section 10BSection 14

section 10A of the Act. It is ordered accordingly.” 4.6 In view of the above order of the Co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal, we hold that the CIT(A) is justified in allowing the alternative plea of the assessee u/s. 10A of the I.T. Act. It is ordered accordingly. 5. In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

M/S. CLINIPACE CLINICAL RESEARCH P. LTD(FORMERLY PARAGON BIO MEDICAL P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal filed

ITA 297/COCH/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri P B Bansal & George George K, Jm

Section 10ASection 10A(2)(i)Section 10BSection 14

section 10A of the Act. It is ordered accordingly.” 4.6 In view of the above order of the Co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal, we hold that the CIT(A) is justified in allowing the alternative plea of the assessee u/s. 10A of the I.T. Act. It is ordered accordingly. 5. In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

TRAVANCORE COCOTUFT P. LTD,ALAPPUZHA vs. THE ACIT, CIR-1,, ALAPPUZHA

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

ITA 199/COCH/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 10ASection 10BSection 143(3)Section 148

condone the delay of 03 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the exclusion of Rs.10,77,995/- from the export turnover, on the ground that the appellant had not received the sale proceeds within

THE ITO,, ALAPPUZHA vs. M/S.EXTRAWEAVE P. LTD, ALAPPUZHA

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

ITA 448/COCH/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Extraweave Pvt. Ltd. Arattukulangara Complex 264B/Cmc 1 Vs. A.N. Puram, Alapuzha 688011 Sakteeswara Junction Cherthala 688524 Pan – Aabce5438L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 10BSection 10B(3)Section 143(2)Section 195Section 195(6)Section 40

condoned delay and dismissed the SLP." 14.1 Further, the question whether dismissal of SLP amounts to laying down law in respect of the issue disputed under SLP, has been considered by the ITAT in the case of Moradabad Development Authority, 89 taxmann.com 263 and it was held as under: 7 M/s. Extraweave Pvt. Ltd. "4 ... …. Further, it is a settled

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

condonation of 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