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.

240 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 14clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai1,698Delhi1,655Mumbai1,550Pune1,096Kolkata907Bangalore830Hyderabad757Ahmedabad574Jaipur544Nagpur334Chandigarh323Surat310Raipur294Visakhapatnam283Cochin240Karnataka232Indore188Amritsar179Cuttack166Lucknow114Rajkot111Panaji104Patna65Calcutta62Jodhpur56SC50Guwahati46Allahabad39Agra38Dehradun30Telangana30Varanasi19Jabalpur15Ranchi10Rajasthan7Orissa6Kerala5Himachal Pradesh4Andhra Pradesh4A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2R.M. LODHA ANIL R. DAVE1Punjab & Haryana1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1DIPAK MISRA R.K. AGRAWAL PRAFULLA C. PANT1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Condonation of Delay57Section 143(3)53Addition to Income44Section 80P38Section 234E36Section 153A23Section 13222TDS22Deduction

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)

14 of 23 alone “sufficient cause” the fact is that no cause has been advanced by the assessee for the delay. As there is no explanation for the delay, the appeal deserves to be dismissed in limine, being barred by limitation. In our opinion, it was only negligence on the part of assessee for the above inordinate delay

Showing 1–20 of 240 · Page 1 of 12

...
21
Penalty21
Section 26320
Section 12A19

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)

section 249(2)(b) within 30 days of the notice of demand relating to the assessment or penalty. It was found that in the aforesaid cases the notices of demand were duly served on the assessee as per the prescribed procedure and the records indicated that the assessee was in knowledge of the same. 3.4 In view of the above

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

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)

section 249(2)(b) within 30 days of the notice of demand relating to the assessment or penalty. It was found that in the aforesaid cases the notices of demand were duly served on the assessee as per the prescribed procedure and the records indicated that the assessee was in knowledge of the same. 3.4 In view of the above

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)

section 249(2)(b) within 30 days of the notice of demand relating to the assessment or penalty. It was found that in the aforesaid cases the notices of demand were duly served on the assessee as per the prescribed procedure and the records indicated that the assessee was in knowledge of the same. 3.4 In view of the above

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)

section 249(2)(b) within 30 days of the notice of demand relating to the assessment or penalty. It was found that in the aforesaid cases the notices of demand were duly served on the assessee as per the prescribed procedure and the records indicated that the assessee was in knowledge of the same. 3.4 In view of the above

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)

section 249(2)(b) within 30 days of the notice of demand relating to the assessment or penalty. It was found that in the aforesaid cases the notices of demand were duly served on the assessee as per the prescribed procedure and the records indicated that the assessee was in knowledge of the same. 3.4 In view of the above

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)

section 249(2)(b) within 30 days of the notice of demand relating to the assessment or penalty. It was found that in the aforesaid cases the notices of demand were duly served on the assessee as per the prescribed procedure and the records indicated that the assessee was in knowledge of the same. 3.4 In view of the above

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)

section 249(2)(b) within 30 days of the notice of demand relating to the assessment or penalty. It was found that in the aforesaid cases the notices of demand were duly served on the assessee as per the prescribed procedure and the records indicated that the assessee was in knowledge of the same. 3.4 In view of the above

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)

section 249(2)(b) within 30 days of the notice of demand relating to the assessment or penalty. It was found that in the aforesaid cases the notices of demand were duly served on the assessee as per the prescribed procedure and the records indicated that the assessee was in knowledge of the same. 3.4 In view of the above

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)

section 249(2)(b) within 30 days of the notice of demand relating to the assessment or penalty. It was found that in the aforesaid cases the notices of demand were duly served on the assessee as per the prescribed procedure and the records indicated that the assessee was in knowledge of the same. 3.4 In view of the above

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)

section 249(2)(b) within 30 days of the notice of demand relating to the assessment or penalty. It was found that in the aforesaid cases the notices of demand were duly served on the assessee as per the prescribed procedure and the records indicated that the assessee was in knowledge of the same. 3.4 In view of the above

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)

section 249(2)(b) within 30 days of the notice of demand relating to the assessment or penalty. It was found that in the aforesaid cases the notices of demand were duly served on the assessee as per the prescribed procedure and the records indicated that the assessee was in knowledge of the same. 3.4 In view of the above

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)

section 249(2)(b) within 30 days of the notice of demand relating to the assessment or penalty. It was found that in the aforesaid cases the notices of demand were duly served on the assessee as per the prescribed procedure and the records indicated that the assessee was in knowledge of the same. 3.4 In view of the above

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

section 51 of the Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on de merits". The Page 6 of 16 expression “sufficient cause” employed by the Legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice

CELESTIAL INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD,AMBALAMUGAL vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), ERNALUAM

In the result, appeal is "Dismissed"

ITA 160/COCH/2024[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhcelestial Infrastructure (P) Ltd. Dcit, Corporate Circle - 1(1) Aiswarya Towers Cr Building, Is Press Road Hoc Junction, Ambalamugal Vs. Kochi 682018 Ernakulam 682302 [Pan: Aaccc6737F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Thomas Thomas, CAFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 249Section 249(3)Section 250

14 & 15 of Form No. 35. The grounds raised in Form No. 35 for the condonation of delay in filing the appeal is reproduced below:- "Though the Intimation u/s 143(1) is dated 26.03.2012, the appellant had not received it either by email or by post and the Intimation never came to the notice of the appellant before 15.02.2023. Only

CSB BANK LTD (FORMERLY THE CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD(THUMPAMON BRANCH),PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ACIT(TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 525/COCH/2019[2013-14(24 Q-Q4)]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Oct 2019

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

Section 234E

14 26Q/Q1 Nalukodi 543 & 544/ 2014- 29.07.2015 28.08.2015 05.12.2018 1195 16289 C/2019 15 26Q/Q3 -do- -do- 2014- 03.08.2015 02.09.2015 05.12.2018 1190 36400 15 27Q/Q3 254892 4. Aggrieved by the orders of the CIT(A) in rejecting the assessee’s appeals in limine without condoning the delay in filing the appeals, the assessee has filed these appeals before the Tribunal

CSB BANK LTD (FORMERLY THE CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD(THUMPAMON BRANCH),PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ACIT(TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 527/COCH/2019[2013-14(27Q-Q3)]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Oct 2019

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

Section 234E

14 26Q/Q1 Nalukodi 543 & 544/ 2014- 29.07.2015 28.08.2015 05.12.2018 1195 16289 C/2019 15 26Q/Q3 -do- -do- 2014- 03.08.2015 02.09.2015 05.12.2018 1190 36400 15 27Q/Q3 254892 4. Aggrieved by the orders of the CIT(A) in rejecting the assessee’s appeals in limine without condoning the delay in filing the appeals, the assessee has filed these appeals before the Tribunal

CSB BANK LTD (FORMERLY THE CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD(THUMPAMON BRANCH),PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ACIT(TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 526/COCH/2019[2013-14(26Q-Q4)]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Oct 2019

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

Section 234E

14 26Q/Q1 Nalukodi 543 & 544/ 2014- 29.07.2015 28.08.2015 05.12.2018 1195 16289 C/2019 15 26Q/Q3 -do- -do- 2014- 03.08.2015 02.09.2015 05.12.2018 1190 36400 15 27Q/Q3 254892 4. Aggrieved by the orders of the CIT(A) in rejecting the assessee’s appeals in limine without condoning the delay in filing the appeals, the assessee has filed these appeals before the Tribunal

SHOBHA RAMAKRISHNANA NAIR,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO, WARD 2, ALUVA

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

ITA 810/COCH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17 Shobha Ramakrishnan Nair Karthika Sebipuram Ito Ernakulam Ward-2 Vs. Manjapra So Aluva Kerala 683581 Pan No :Awrpr5406L Appellant Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 30.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.04.2025 O R D E R Per Keshav Dubey: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 22.12.2023 Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1059003947(1) For The Ay 2016- 17 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 250

condoning the delay of 5 months in filing the appeal as requested by the assessee in column 14 & 15 of form no. 35 filed on 28.09.2022 on the reasons that assessee has not shown any sufficient cause. 7. Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dated 22.12.2023, the assessee has filed the present appeal before this Tribunal

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