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.

2 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 144C(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi130Mumbai117Kolkata36Hyderabad35Chennai31Bangalore31Pune27Jaipur13Ahmedabad11Indore8Nagpur5Chandigarh5Visakhapatnam3Rajkot3Dehradun2Cochin2Agra1SC1Lucknow1Raipur1Cuttack1

Key Topics

Section 144C2Addition to Income2

THE ACIT, CORP CIRCLE-1(1), KOCHI, ERNAKULAM vs. APPOLO TYRES LTD, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 247/COCH/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Mar 2019AY 2006-07

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

Section 143(3)Section 80I

condone the delay of 52 days and admit the appeal for adjudication. I.T.A. Nos. 247,302, 339, 268&336/Coch/2018& C.O. Nos. 56&57/Coch/2018 6.2 The facts of the case are that this claim was not made in the original return of income or through a revised return of income. The claim was made during the course of assessment proceedings

UTHUMAN SAHIB SHAJI,PATHANAPURAM vs. DCIT , CIRCLE, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, TRIVANDRUM

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

ITA 998/COCH/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin
04 Jul 2024
AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Sri Sanjit Kumar Das, D.R
Section 144C

1. The order of the assessing officer is against facts, law and circumstances of the case. 2. The assessing officer has erred in referring the assessment to the Dispute Resolution Panel as the requisite conditions are not satisfied in the present case. 3. The assessing officer and-the Dispute Resolution Panel ought to have found that the provisions of section