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.

42 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 13(2)(h)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi448Jaipur402Mumbai377Chennai369Bangalore187Hyderabad184Kolkata170Chandigarh135Karnataka134Pune133Raipur80Amritsar72Ahmedabad69Cuttack56Surat48Cochin42Calcutta36Lucknow28Rajkot28Indore24SC23Visakhapatnam22Nagpur14Jodhpur13Varanasi9Guwahati8Telangana8Agra6Patna6Allahabad6Kerala5Orissa2Dehradun2Panaji2Gauhati1Andhra Pradesh1R.M. LODHA ANIL R. DAVE1Himachal Pradesh1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Rajasthan1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1

Key Topics

Section 26351Section 12A32Section 143(3)30Section 1123Section 15323Addition to Income23Section 13122Section 80P18Section 250

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)

H). It was held in this case, that delay can be condoned only for sufficient and good reasons supported by cogent and proper evidence. In this case, Hon’ble High Court upheld the decision of ITAT refusing to condone delay of five days in filing of Revenue’s appeal because of the reasons that (a) M/s. Paravur Service Co-operative

Showing 1–20 of 42 · Page 1 of 3

14
Exemption13
Limitation/Time-bar10
Charitable Trust9

EDAVILANGU SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO 3468,THRISSUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), THRISSUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 405/COCH/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Feb 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Smt. Leena Lal, Snr. ARFor Respondent: None
Section 2(1)Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

H. The appellant society is not liable to pay any amount as Income Tax and the appellant is entitled to obtain statutory deduction under Section 80(P)(2) of the Income Tax Act, since, the same is society is Primary Agricultural Credit Society. Hence, the reasoning made by the assessing authority as well as the appellate authority to reject

EDAVILANGU SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK NO 3468,THRISSUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), THRISSUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 406/COCH/2024[AY 2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Feb 2025

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Smt. Leena Lal, Snr. ARFor Respondent: None
Section 2(1)Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

H. The appellant society is not liable to pay any amount as Income Tax and the appellant is entitled to obtain statutory deduction under Section 80(P)(2) of the Income Tax Act, since, the same is society is Primary Agricultural Credit Society. Hence, the reasoning made by the assessing authority as well as the appellate authority to reject

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

THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKKODE, KOZHIKKODE vs. M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of

ITA 374/COCH/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

Section 131Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

H)] iii) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd [(2011) 332 ITR 167 (Delhi)] 3.9.1 The Ld. AR submitted that it is a crystallized position of law that when two opinions are possible, revisionary jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act must not be exercised. He relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT vs. Amitabh

THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKKODE, KOZHIKKODE vs. M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of

ITA 377/COCH/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

Section 131Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

H)] iii) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd [(2011) 332 ITR 167 (Delhi)] 3.9.1 The Ld. AR submitted that it is a crystallized position of law that when two opinions are possible, revisionary jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act must not be exercised. He relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT vs. Amitabh

THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKKODE, KOZHIKKODE vs. M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of

ITA 375/COCH/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

Section 131Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

H)] iii) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd [(2011) 332 ITR 167 (Delhi)] 3.9.1 The Ld. AR submitted that it is a crystallized position of law that when two opinions are possible, revisionary jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act must not be exercised. He relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT vs. Amitabh

M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES,TRICHUR vs. THE DCIT(, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of

ITA 495/COCH/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

Section 131Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

H)] iii) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd [(2011) 332 ITR 167 (Delhi)] 3.9.1 The Ld. AR submitted that it is a crystallized position of law that when two opinions are possible, revisionary jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act must not be exercised. He relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT vs. Amitabh

M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES,TRICHUR vs. THE DCIT, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of

ITA 496/COCH/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

Section 131Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

H)] iii) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd [(2011) 332 ITR 167 (Delhi)] 3.9.1 The Ld. AR submitted that it is a crystallized position of law that when two opinions are possible, revisionary jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act must not be exercised. He relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT vs. Amitabh

M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES,TRICHUR vs. THE DCIT, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of

ITA 499/COCH/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

Section 131Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

H)] iii) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd [(2011) 332 ITR 167 (Delhi)] 3.9.1 The Ld. AR submitted that it is a crystallized position of law that when two opinions are possible, revisionary jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act must not be exercised. He relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT vs. Amitabh

M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES,TRICHUR vs. THE DCIT, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of

ITA 497/COCH/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

Section 131Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

H)] iii) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd [(2011) 332 ITR 167 (Delhi)] 3.9.1 The Ld. AR submitted that it is a crystallized position of law that when two opinions are possible, revisionary jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act must not be exercised. He relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT vs. Amitabh

THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKKODE, KOZHIKKODE vs. M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of

ITA 376/COCH/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

Section 131Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

H)] iii) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd [(2011) 332 ITR 167 (Delhi)] 3.9.1 The Ld. AR submitted that it is a crystallized position of law that when two opinions are possible, revisionary jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act must not be exercised. He relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT vs. Amitabh

THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKKODE, KOZHIKKODE vs. M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of

ITA 379/COCH/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

Section 131Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

H)] iii) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd [(2011) 332 ITR 167 (Delhi)] 3.9.1 The Ld. AR submitted that it is a crystallized position of law that when two opinions are possible, revisionary jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act must not be exercised. He relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT vs. Amitabh

THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKKODE, KOZHIKKODE vs. M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of

ITA 378/COCH/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

Section 131Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

H)] iii) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd [(2011) 332 ITR 167 (Delhi)] 3.9.1 The Ld. AR submitted that it is a crystallized position of law that when two opinions are possible, revisionary jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act must not be exercised. He relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT vs. Amitabh

M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES,TRICHUR vs. THE DCIT, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of

ITA 498/COCH/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

Section 131Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

H)] iii) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd [(2011) 332 ITR 167 (Delhi)] 3.9.1 The Ld. AR submitted that it is a crystallized position of law that when two opinions are possible, revisionary jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act must not be exercised. He relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT vs. Amitabh

M/S.KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

ITA 256/COCH/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2019AY 2007-08

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

Section 10ASection 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

13 of the IT Act, 1961 specify the circumstances under which the benefits under section 11 would be available to an organization. 1. If the income is not applied for the benefit of the public. 2. If the income is applied for the benefit of any particular religious community or caste. 3. If the income or property of the Trust

M/S.KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

ITA 255/COCH/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2019AY 2006-07

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

Section 10ASection 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

13 of the IT Act, 1961 specify the circumstances under which the benefits under section 11 would be available to an organization. 1. If the income is not applied for the benefit of the public. 2. If the income is applied for the benefit of any particular religious community or caste. 3. If the income or property of the Trust

M/S.KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

ITA 261/COCH/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2019AY 2012-13

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

Section 10ASection 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

13 of the IT Act, 1961 specify the circumstances under which the benefits under section 11 would be available to an organization. 1. If the income is not applied for the benefit of the public. 2. If the income is applied for the benefit of any particular religious community or caste. 3. If the income or property of the Trust

M/S.KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

ITA 259/COCH/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2019AY 2010-11

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

Section 10ASection 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

13 of the IT Act, 1961 specify the circumstances under which the benefits under section 11 would be available to an organization. 1. If the income is not applied for the benefit of the public. 2. If the income is applied for the benefit of any particular religious community or caste. 3. If the income or property of the Trust

M/S.KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

ITA 260/COCH/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2019AY 2011-12

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

Section 10ASection 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

13 of the IT Act, 1961 specify the circumstances under which the benefits under section 11 would be available to an organization. 1. If the income is not applied for the benefit of the public. 2. If the income is applied for the benefit of any particular religious community or caste. 3. If the income or property of the Trust