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.

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

Sorted by relevance

Chennai95Delhi90Mumbai74Kolkata58Ahmedabad51Bangalore45Raipur44Hyderabad42Jaipur36Pune36Visakhapatnam13Surat12Rajkot9Chandigarh6Lucknow5Cochin5Amritsar5Indore4Nagpur4Patna4Jodhpur3Cuttack3Guwahati3Agra3Calcutta2Telangana2Varanasi2Karnataka2Allahabad1Jabalpur1SC1Orissa1

Key Topics

Section 10B14Section 10A6Section 80P6Deduction5Section 143(3)4Section 2533Exemption3Section 10A(5)2Section 1392Section 142(1)

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

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

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

5. On appeal, the CIT(A) observed that even though the assessee disputed the action of the Assessing Officer on this issue but has not explained how such action is contrary to the provisions of the Act. According to the CIT(A), the provisions of subsection 3 of the section 10B read as under: "(3) This section applies

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