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.

142 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 13(8)clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai1,681Delhi1,655Mumbai1,522Kolkata942Bangalore820Pune759Hyderabad603Jaipur518Ahmedabad496Raipur305Chandigarh293Surat292Nagpur286Visakhapatnam236Karnataka235Indore192Amritsar180Cochin142Lucknow139Rajkot133Cuttack112Panaji98Patna69SC54Calcutta51Dehradun40Guwahati35Allahabad31Telangana31Jodhpur30Agra27Varanasi19Jabalpur19Ranchi10Orissa6Rajasthan6Kerala5Himachal Pradesh4A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2DIPAK MISRA R.K. AGRAWAL PRAFULLA C. PANT1Gauhati1R.M. LODHA ANIL R. DAVE1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 80P84Section 143(3)52Addition to Income48Condonation of Delay44Cash Deposit35Section 14834Deduction34Section 80P(2)(a)31Section 139(1)

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 253(3) of I.T. Act, leading us unhesitatingly to reject assessee’s request for condonation of delay in filing of this appeal within time prescribed U/s 253(3) of I.T. Act. M/s. Paravur Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., Thiruvananthapuram Page 16 of 23 4.7 Further, at this stage, it is pertinent to mention the various precedents as follows

Showing 1–20 of 142 · Page 1 of 8

...
24
Section 123
Limitation/Time-bar22
Section 12A21

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

8. The next question that arises is whether delay was excessive or inordinate. There is no question of any excessive or inordinate when the reason stated by the assessee was a reasonable cause for not able to file the appeals within the period of limitation. The cause for the delay therefore deserves to be considered, when there exist a reasonable

PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE KUNNAMANGALAM,KOZHIKODE vs. ITO, WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 761/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Richard Mathews, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

13. It is no doubt true that while considering the application for condonation of delay, the expression ‘sufficient cause’ has to be liberally construed. It, however, does not mean that without making any sufficient cause, the Court will condone the delay regardless of the length of the delay. In the present case, the delay is of 12 years

PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE KUNNAMANGALAM,KOZHIKODE vs. ITO, WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 764/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Richard Mathews, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

13. It is no doubt true that while considering the application for condonation of delay, the expression ‘sufficient cause’ has to be liberally construed. It, however, does not mean that without making any sufficient cause, the Court will condone the delay regardless of the length of the delay. In the present case, the delay is of 12 years

PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE KUNNAMANGALAM KOZHIKODE,KOZHIKODE vs. ITO ,WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 762/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Richard Mathews, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

13. It is no doubt true that while considering the application for condonation of delay, the expression ‘sufficient cause’ has to be liberally construed. It, however, does not mean that without making any sufficient cause, the Court will condone the delay regardless of the length of the delay. In the present case, the delay is of 12 years

PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE KUNNAMANAGALAM KOZHIKODE,KOZHIKODE vs. ITO,WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 763/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Richard Mathews, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

13. It is no doubt true that while considering the application for condonation of delay, the expression ‘sufficient cause’ has to be liberally construed. It, however, does not mean that without making any sufficient cause, the Court will condone the delay regardless of the length of the delay. In the present case, the delay is of 12 years

SAYEGH PAINT FACTORIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,ERNAKULAM vs. CORPORATE CIR 2(1), KOCHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the stay petition is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 451/COCH/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Snr.AR
Section 144B(6)(vii)Section 148Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

condonation of delay before furnishing a tax audit report under Section 44AB. 8- The delay in filing audit report is legitimate, for reasons beyond the control of the company as the accounts are not adopted and there was a litigation pending with National Company Law Tribunal NCLT. 9-Also, reference is given to section 273B stating that no penalty shall

THRISSUR DISTRICT POLICE CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THRISSUR

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

ITA 409/COCH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri M.Ramdas, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. A.R
Section 154Section 250Section 253(5)

8 of 19 in both these appeals & accordingly requested to condone the delay of 96 days in filing both the appeals before this Tribunal by taking a lenient view in the matter. 3.4 We are of the considered opinion that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate and the assessee cannot be said to be callous in its approach

THRISSUR DISTRICT POLICE CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THRISSUR

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

ITA 408/COCH/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri M.Ramdas, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. A.R
Section 154Section 250Section 253(5)

8 of 19 in both these appeals & accordingly requested to condone the delay of 96 days in filing both the appeals before this Tribunal by taking a lenient view in the matter. 3.4 We are of the considered opinion that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate and the assessee cannot be said to be callous in its approach

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

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 to persons who are enrolled as members of the Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Board

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

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 to persons who are enrolled as members of the Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Board

CHRIST THE KING CHURCH,KOCHI vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), KOCHI

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

ITA 897/COCH/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 May 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : Na

For Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar P J
Section 12ASection 13(1)(a)

condoning the said delay and proceeded to decide the appeal on merits. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a public religious trust and they obtained the provisional registration on 27/05/2021. Thereafter they applied for permanent registration and also enclosed the necessary documents along with the said application. The Ld.CIT(E) had rejected the said

INFANT JESUS CHURCH,KOCHI vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), ERNAKULAM

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

ITA 898/COCH/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Jun 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : Na

For Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar P J
Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)Section 13(1)(a)

condoning the said delay and proceeded to decide the appeal on merits. Page 3 of 5 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a public religious trust and they obtained the provisional registration on 27.05.2021. Thereafter they applied for permanent registration and also enclosed the necessary documents along with the said application. The Ld.CIT

SAVE A FAMILY PLAN (INDIA),,KANJOOR vs. DCIT(EXEMPTION), KOCHI

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

ITA 138/COCH/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Save A Family Plan (India) Dy. Cit, Exemption Aiswaryagram, Parappuram San Juan Towers, 2Nd Floor Vs. Kanjoor - 683575 Old Railway Station Road [Pan:Aabts9439E] Kochi 682018 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Abraham J. Markose, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 260ASection 263

delay in filing appeal stands condoned by the order passed by Third Member. We now proceed to dwell into the merits of the order passed u/s. 263 of the Act. 8. The learned counsel for the assessee submits that the appellant is a charitable trust registered u/s. 12A of the Act and also enjoying registration under FCRA. The appellant trust

KODIYIL THAMEEM,PAYYANNUR vs. THE INCME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4, KANNUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 766/COCH/2023[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Jan 2025

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2017-18 Kodiyil Thameem Abc Sales Corporation, Abc Esquire Payannur, Kannur 670307 [Pan: Afppt3775D] .......... Appellant Vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward - 4, Kannur .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Suresh Kumar, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 12.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.01.2025

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 5

13,82,690/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Kannur (hereafter “the AO”) vide order dated 10.12.12019 u/s. 143(3) of the 2 Kodiyil Thameem Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) making an addition of Rs. 22,48,500/- on account of unexplained cash deposits during demonetisation period

THE AROOR CENTRAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,ALAPPUZHA vs. ITO, WARD -2, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeals and stay applications filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 372/COCH/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kumar Varma, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80ASection 80P

section 80AC of the Act. Accordingly, disallowed the claim for deduction u/s. 80P after making several disallowances. The AO assessed income of Rs. 94,66,941/- under the head ‘business’. 5. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal placing reliance on 3 ITA 371 & 372/Coch/2025/SA 51 & 52/C/2024 The Aroor

THE AROOR CENTRAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,ALAPPUZHA vs. ITO, WARD -5, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeals and stay applications filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 371/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kumar Varma, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80ASection 80P

section 80AC of the Act. Accordingly, disallowed the claim for deduction u/s. 80P after making several disallowances. The AO assessed income of Rs. 94,66,941/- under the head ‘business’. 5. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal placing reliance on 3 ITA 371 & 372/Coch/2025/SA 51 & 52/C/2024 The Aroor

NEW COCHIN REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS,KOCHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, KOCHI

The appeal is dismissed both on the grounds of delay and latches and also as defective appeal

ITA 924/COCH/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Mar 2025AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Shri K. Kittu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was filed by the assessee. The AO conducted survey operations u/s. 133A of the Act, wherein certain incriminating material was stated to have been found. Accordingly, a notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued on 01.04.2009. In response to the notice the appellant filed return of income

NEW COCHIN REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS,KOCHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, KOCHI

The appeal is dismissed both on the grounds of delay and latches and also as defective appeal

ITA 925/COCH/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Mar 2025AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Shri K. Kittu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was filed by the assessee. The AO conducted survey operations u/s. 133A of the Act, wherein certain incriminating material was stated to have been found. Accordingly, a notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued on 01.04.2009. In response to the notice the appellant filed return of income

GOVERNMENT MENTAL HOSPITAL,KUTHIRAVATTAM vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC (TDS), KOZHIKODE

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

ITA 277/COCH/2021[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Jun 2022AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Richard Mathew, CAFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamunna Devi, Sr.DR
Section 200ASection 234E

condone the delay of filing the appeal before the first appellate authority. 13. As regards the issue on merits, the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Olari Little Flower Kuries (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India reported in (2022) 440 ITR 26 (Ker.), has held that since provision of section 200A of the I.T.Act was amended