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.

34 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 132clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi477Chennai409Mumbai356Hyderabad211Kolkata193Bangalore170Jaipur139Ahmedabad122Karnataka112Chandigarh109Pune87Amritsar81Surat74Visakhapatnam67Calcutta36Cochin34Nagpur33Indore31Rajkot26Guwahati22Patna19Raipur18Lucknow18Cuttack15Panaji14Telangana11Ranchi10Dehradun10SC9Jodhpur8Orissa6Kerala4Allahabad1Punjab & Haryana1Rajasthan1Andhra Pradesh1Varanasi1

Key Topics

Addition to Income31Section 153A30Section 13228Section 12A28Section 1121Condonation of Delay20Section 143(3)18Penalty15Section 14414

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)

condone the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and restore the case back to the file of CIT(A) to adjudicate the matter. 2.1 The crux of the above grounds is that the CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the appeals on account of delay in filing the same before the CIT(A). I.T.A. Nos.161-172/Coch/2019

SRI VARGHESE M.UTHUP,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT,CEN-CIRCLE-2, KOCHI

Showing 1–20 of 34 · Page 1 of 2

Section 271(1)(c)14
Section 139(1)14
Exemption9

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)

condone the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and restore the case back to the file of CIT(A) to adjudicate the matter. 2.1 The crux of the above grounds is that the CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the appeals on account of delay in filing the same before the CIT(A). I.T.A. Nos.161-172/Coch/2019

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)

condone the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and restore the case back to the file of CIT(A) to adjudicate the matter. 2.1 The crux of the above grounds is that the CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the appeals on account of delay in filing the same before the CIT(A). I.T.A. Nos.161-172/Coch/2019

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)

condone the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and restore the case back to the file of CIT(A) to adjudicate the matter. 2.1 The crux of the above grounds is that the CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the appeals on account of delay in filing the same before the CIT(A). I.T.A. Nos.161-172/Coch/2019

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)

condone the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and restore the case back to the file of CIT(A) to adjudicate the matter. 2.1 The crux of the above grounds is that the CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the appeals on account of delay in filing the same before the CIT(A). I.T.A. Nos.161-172/Coch/2019

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)

condone the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and restore the case back to the file of CIT(A) to adjudicate the matter. 2.1 The crux of the above grounds is that the CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the appeals on account of delay in filing the same before the CIT(A). I.T.A. Nos.161-172/Coch/2019

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)

condone the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and restore the case back to the file of CIT(A) to adjudicate the matter. 2.1 The crux of the above grounds is that the CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the appeals on account of delay in filing the same before the CIT(A). I.T.A. Nos.161-172/Coch/2019

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)

condone the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and restore the case back to the file of CIT(A) to adjudicate the matter. 2.1 The crux of the above grounds is that the CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the appeals on account of delay in filing the same before the CIT(A). I.T.A. Nos.161-172/Coch/2019

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)

condone the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and restore the case back to the file of CIT(A) to adjudicate the matter. 2.1 The crux of the above grounds is that the CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the appeals on account of delay in filing the same before the CIT(A). I.T.A. Nos.161-172/Coch/2019

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)

condone the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and restore the case back to the file of CIT(A) to adjudicate the matter. 2.1 The crux of the above grounds is that the CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the appeals on account of delay in filing the same before the CIT(A). I.T.A. Nos.161-172/Coch/2019

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)

condone the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and restore the case back to the file of CIT(A) to adjudicate the matter. 2.1 The crux of the above grounds is that the CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the appeals on account of delay in filing the same before the CIT(A). I.T.A. Nos.161-172/Coch/2019

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)

condone the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and restore the case back to the file of CIT(A) to adjudicate the matter. 2.1 The crux of the above grounds is that the CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the appeals on account of delay in filing the same before the CIT(A). I.T.A. Nos.161-172/Coch/2019

THE ACIT, TRICHUR vs. THE DCIT, TRICHUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed and both

ITA 61/COCH/2017[2011-12]Status: PendingITAT Cochin19 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

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

Section 5

condone the delay of 217 days in filing the appeals for all the assessment years. 6. In the result, all the other appeals of the assessee are dismissed as unadmitted. 7. Now coming to the Revenue appeal in ITA No.60/Coch/2017. The Revenue has raised the following grounds: 1. The CIT(A) erred in suggesting that extrapolation of the findings

ANAKKARA FOOD PROCESSING AND EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,EDAPPAL vs. ACIT, TIRUR

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

ITA 581/COCH/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Paulson K.P., CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 282(1)

132 days. The delay is stated to have occurred due to the fact that the appellant company was inoperative since 2018 with huge accumulated losses. There was no full time accountant or staff to looks after the statutory matters. Further, the Managing Director of the appellant company was under treatment for L.B.A (Kadeegraham) from 25.11.2023 to 25.02.2024. An affidavit

ANAKKARA FOOD PROCESSING AND EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,ANAKKARA vs. ACIT, TIRUR

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

ITA 582/COCH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Paulson K.P., CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 282(1)

132 days. The delay is stated to have occurred due to the fact that the appellant company was inoperative since 2018 with huge accumulated losses. There was no full time accountant or staff to looks after the statutory matters. Further, the Managing Director of the appellant company was under treatment for L.B.A (Kadeegraham) from 25.11.2023 to 25.02.2024. An affidavit

SRI.ALAVIKUTTY,VENGARA,MALAPPURAM vs. THE DCIT, CALICUT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 524/COCH/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Jan 2019AY 2007-08

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

Section 132Section 153Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 27I(1)Section 27I(1)(c)

condone the delay and the appeal is taken up for adjudication. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. Your petitioner is very much aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-III, Kochi. This order is quite arbitrary and opposed to law and facts of the case. The appellant was working abroad

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

132 of the IT Act at the business and connected institutions on 31/10/2011 on the strength of warrant of authorization dated 27/10/2011 issued by Director of Income-tax(Investigation), Cochin. The search revealed that there was violation of section 13(1)(c) and 11(4) of the Act and the income of the Trust was chargeable to tax. M/s. Kunhitharuvai

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 257/COCH/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2019AY 2008-09

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

132 of the IT Act at the business and connected institutions on 31/10/2011 on the strength of warrant of authorization dated 27/10/2011 issued by Director of Income-tax(Investigation), Cochin. The search revealed that there was violation of section 13(1)(c) and 11(4) of the Act and the income of the Trust was chargeable to tax. M/s. Kunhitharuvai

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

132 of the IT Act at the business and connected institutions on 31/10/2011 on the strength of warrant of authorization dated 27/10/2011 issued by Director of Income-tax(Investigation), Cochin. The search revealed that there was violation of section 13(1)(c) and 11(4) of the Act and the income of the Trust was chargeable to tax. M/s. Kunhitharuvai

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

132 of the IT Act at the business and connected institutions on 31/10/2011 on the strength of warrant of authorization dated 27/10/2011 issued by Director of Income-tax(Investigation), Cochin. The search revealed that there was violation of section 13(1)(c) and 11(4) of the Act and the income of the Trust was chargeable to tax. M/s. Kunhitharuvai