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.

7 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 138clear

Sorted by relevance

Karnataka104Mumbai102Chennai92Bangalore84Delhi82Ahmedabad73Pune65Kolkata51Calcutta36Hyderabad27Jaipur24Indore19Chandigarh18Kerala17Surat13Visakhapatnam10Lucknow10Rajkot8Cochin7Raipur7Cuttack5Nagpur5Patna5Allahabad3SC3Amritsar3Andhra Pradesh2Jodhpur1Orissa1Rajasthan1Dehradun1

Key Topics

Section 80P(2)(d)12Section 80J9Section 107Section 139(1)7Section 143(3)5Section 115Deduction5Section 10B4Section 143(1)

SRI.KRISHNAN ACHARY,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ITO, WD-3,, THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 432/COCH/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George George K.

Section 10Section 148

condone the delay of 88 days and proceed to dispose off the appeal on merits. 3 I.T.A. No.432Coch/2018 3. The solitary issue that is raised is whether the CIT(A) is justified in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in disallowing the claim of deduction u/s. 10(10C) of the I.T. Act. 4. The brief facts of the case

ASSOCIATION FOR WELFARE OF THE HANDICAPPED,KOZHIKODE vs. THE ITO EXEMPTION WARD, KOZHIKODE

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

ITA 305/COCH/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Feb 2025AY 2011-12
4
Exemption3
Addition to Income3
Condonation of Delay2

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Ms. Binisha Baby, Advocate
Section 1Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)

138(Mad),where it has been observed that the words "In the prescribed manner" in Sec.11(2) do not confer power on the rule making authority to prescribe a time limit in Rule 17. C. Furthermore, the amendment to Sec.11(2) Income Tax Act introduced through the Finance Act, 2015 which led to the addition that the Form

BLOSSOM INNERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD 1(1), KOCHI

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

ITA 826/COCH/2024[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Jun 2025AY 2023-2024

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2023-24

For Appellant: Shri Radhesh Bhatt, CAFor Respondent: Shri Omanakuttan, Snr AR
Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 40Section 80J

condone the said delay in filing the return of income but only the CBDT has power u/s. 119(2)(b) of the Act and therefore denied the claim made by the assessee. 10. In this issue, we have come across several orders of the Hon’ble Tribunals in which it was categorically held that the authorities should have considered

T.J.MATHAI AND COMPANY,ERNAKULAM vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , KOCHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 721/COCH/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Assessment Year: 2014-15 T.J. Mathai & Company .......... Appellant Amigo House, Thoundayil Road Cochin 682036 [Pan: Aahft6856C] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Corporate Ward 2(1), Kochi Appellant By: Smt. Parvathy Ammal, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 04.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.02.2025

For Appellant: Smt. Parvathy Ammal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 144Section 148Section 271B

section 139(1) of the Act. The Income Tax Officer, Corporate Ward-2(1), Kochi issued a notice u/s. 148 of the Act on 30.03.2021. In response to the notice, the appellant filed return of income on 13.04.2021 declaring total income at Rs. 37,41,790/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the AO vide

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

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

ITA 227/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Jul 2019AY 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

NMG BANK EMPLOYEES CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY,KANNUR vs. THE ITO, KANNUR

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 120/COCH/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, J.M & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, A.M

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt.J.M. Jamuna Devi (Addl.CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

delay of 52 days in the appeal which stand condoned since the impugned order was passed during lockdown situation arising out of Covid-19 Pandemic. The facts as well as issues are stated to be identical in both the years. 2. Upon perusal of assessment order for 2016-17, it could be seen that the assessee earned interest income

NMG BANK EMPLOYEES CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY,KANNUR vs. THE ITO, , KANNUR

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 119/COCH/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, J.M & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, A.M

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt.J.M. Jamuna Devi (Addl.CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

delay of 52 days in the appeal which stand condoned since the impugned order was passed during lockdown situation arising out of Covid-19 Pandemic. The facts as well as issues are stated to be identical in both the years. 2. Upon perusal of assessment order for 2016-17, it could be seen that the assessee earned interest income