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.

21 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 145clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai191Chennai132Kolkata125Karnataka123Delhi110Jaipur87Chandigarh75Ahmedabad73Bangalore69Pune47Hyderabad41Calcutta36Surat28Cuttack24Lucknow23Indore21Cochin21Nagpur16Patna14Jodhpur11Raipur10Rajkot9Amritsar9Visakhapatnam6SC5Allahabad4Agra3Varanasi3Dehradun3Telangana3Panaji2Ranchi1Andhra Pradesh1Rajasthan1Jabalpur1Orissa1

Key Topics

Limitation/Time-bar13Section 80P9Condonation of Delay9Section 234E8TDS8Natural Justice8Addition to Income6Section 143(3)5Section 153C

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

condoning the delay of 1855 days. We decide accordingly. ITA Nos. 908 & 909/Coch/2022 (AYs: 2010-11& 11-12) Kasaragod Toddy Tappers and Shop Workers Co-operative Society Ltd.v. ITOO 5. The ld. CIT(A), however, without prejudice, and in the alternative, has discussed the appeal on merits as well.It is, in view of our decisionconfirming his order/s holding the appeal/sbefore

Showing 1–20 of 21 · Page 1 of 2

4
Section 153A4
Section 2504
Section 145A4

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

condoning the delay of 1855 days. We decide accordingly. ITA Nos. 908 & 909/Coch/2022 (AYs: 2010-11& 11-12) Kasaragod Toddy Tappers and Shop Workers Co-operative Society Ltd.v. ITOO 5. The ld. CIT(A), however, without prejudice, and in the alternative, has discussed the appeal on merits as well.It is, in view of our decisionconfirming his order/s holding the appeal/sbefore

CLASSIC PHARMA,ALAPPUZHA vs. ITO, WARD 2, ALAPPUZHA

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

ITA 815/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear:2017-18 Classic Pharma 42/672B, Civil Station Ward Alappuzha 688 001 Vs. Kerala Nfac Delhi Pan No :Aakfc0215F Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri R. Krishnan, A.R. Respondent By : Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 30.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.04.2025

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 249Section 250

delay of 145 days in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A), which is not condoned by the ld. CIT(A) on the ground that the assessee has not discharged the onus of “sufficient cause” within the meaning of section

THE KUNDARA PANCHAYATH SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD,KOLLAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4, KOLLAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 803/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri G.Surendranath Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 250Section 80PSection 8O

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 6. The assesse is a credit co-operative society registered under Kerala Co-operative Societies Act 1969. For the AY 2012-13 the assesse filed its return of income on 9.11.2019. As per the return the taxable income was Nil after claiming deduction

THE KUNDARA PANCHAYATH SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD,KOLLAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, KOLLAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 805/COCH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri G.Surendranath Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 250Section 80PSection 8O

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 6. The assesse is a credit co-operative society registered under Kerala Co-operative Societies Act 1969. For the AY 2012-13 the assesse filed its return of income on 9.11.2019. As per the return the taxable income was Nil after claiming deduction

THE KUNDARA PANCHAYATH SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD,KOLLAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4, KOLLAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 802/COCH/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri G.Surendranath Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 250Section 80PSection 8O

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 6. The assesse is a credit co-operative society registered under Kerala Co-operative Societies Act 1969. For the AY 2012-13 the assesse filed its return of income on 9.11.2019. As per the return the taxable income was Nil after claiming deduction

M/S.PATHANMTHITTA DIST. CO-OP BANK LTD,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE DCIT, THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as not maintainable and, in any case, without merit

ITA 431/COCH/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Daspathanamthitta District Dy. Cit, Circle- 1 Co-Op Bank Ltd. Thiruvalla Near Ksrtc Bus Stand Vs. Mylapara Road Pathanamthitta 689645 [Pan:Aabfp9182H] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Aswin Gopakumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

condonation of delay despite it having been admitted. 4. The first issue on merits is the disallowance of provision for expenses, at Rs. 284.48 lacs, claimed by the assessee, a district co-operative bank registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (Kerala Act), through debit of it’s Profit and Loss Account (operating statement) for the year, being

MARINE BUSINESS ASSOCIATES,KANNUR vs. ITO, KANNUR

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

ITA 558/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.Girly Albert, Sr.DR
Section 145A

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income declaring total income of Rs.37,690 and thereafter the case was selected for scrutiny and the AO determined the income at Rs.6,06,500 by making addition under the head underreporting of closing stock

TIP TOP FURNITURE LAND,MALAPPURAM vs. THE ACIT, GHAZIABAD

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

ITA 132/COCH/2021[2015-16(q1)]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Feb 2022

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri B.R. Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Shri Shaji Poulose, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 234E

145 to 148/Coch/2021 & 154 to 163/Coch/2021 for Assessment Years 2013-14 to 2015-16. 2. Shri Shaji Poulose, CA represented the assessee and Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR represented Revenue. 3. It was the submission of the learned A.R. that the appeals of the assessee have been dismissed on account of delay in filing the appeals

TIP TOP FURNITURE LAND,MALAPPURAM vs. THE ACIT, GHAZIABAD

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

ITA 133/COCH/2021[2015-16 (Q-2)]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Feb 2022

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri B.R. Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Shri Shaji Poulose, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 234E

145 to 148/Coch/2021 & 154 to 163/Coch/2021 for Assessment Years 2013-14 to 2015-16. 2. Shri Shaji Poulose, CA represented the assessee and Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR represented Revenue. 3. It was the submission of the learned A.R. that the appeals of the assessee have been dismissed on account of delay in filing the appeals

TIP TOP FURNITURE LAND,MALAPPURAM vs. THE ACIT, GHAZIABAD

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

ITA 130/COCH/2021[2013-14 (Q4)]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Feb 2022

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri B.R. Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Shri Shaji Poulose, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 234E

145 to 148/Coch/2021 & 154 to 163/Coch/2021 for Assessment Years 2013-14 to 2015-16. 2. Shri Shaji Poulose, CA represented the assessee and Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR represented Revenue. 3. It was the submission of the learned A.R. that the appeals of the assessee have been dismissed on account of delay in filing the appeals

TIP TOP FURNITURE LAND,MALAPPURAM vs. THE ACIT, GHAZIABAD

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

ITA 145/COCH/2021[2013-14 (q3)]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Feb 2022

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri B.R. Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Shri Shaji Poulose, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 234E

145 to 148/Coch/2021 & 154 to 163/Coch/2021 for Assessment Years 2013-14 to 2015-16. 2. Shri Shaji Poulose, CA represented the assessee and Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR represented Revenue. 3. It was the submission of the learned A.R. that the appeals of the assessee have been dismissed on account of delay in filing the appeals

TIP TOP FURNITURE LAND,MALAPPURAM vs. THE ACIT, GHAZIABAD

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

ITA 146/COCH/2021[2014-15 (q3)]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Feb 2022

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri B.R. Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Shri Shaji Poulose, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 234E

145 to 148/Coch/2021 & 154 to 163/Coch/2021 for Assessment Years 2013-14 to 2015-16. 2. Shri Shaji Poulose, CA represented the assessee and Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR represented Revenue. 3. It was the submission of the learned A.R. that the appeals of the assessee have been dismissed on account of delay in filing the appeals

TIP TOP FURNITURE LAND,MALAPPURAM vs. THE ACIT, GHAZIABAD

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

ITA 131/COCH/2021[2014-15 (q1)]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Feb 2022

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri B.R. Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Shri Shaji Poulose, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 234E

145 to 148/Coch/2021 & 154 to 163/Coch/2021 for Assessment Years 2013-14 to 2015-16. 2. Shri Shaji Poulose, CA represented the assessee and Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR represented Revenue. 3. It was the submission of the learned A.R. that the appeals of the assessee have been dismissed on account of delay in filing the appeals

TIP TOP FURNITURE LAND,MALAPPURAM vs. THE ACIT, GHAZIABAD

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

ITA 148/COCH/2021[2015-16 (Q#)]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Feb 2022

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri B.R. Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Shri Shaji Poulose, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 234E

145 to 148/Coch/2021 & 154 to 163/Coch/2021 for Assessment Years 2013-14 to 2015-16. 2. Shri Shaji Poulose, CA represented the assessee and Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR represented Revenue. 3. It was the submission of the learned A.R. that the appeals of the assessee have been dismissed on account of delay in filing the appeals

TIP TOP FURNITURE LAND,MALAPPURAM vs. THE ACIT, GHAZIABAD

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

ITA 147/COCH/2021[2014-15 (q4)]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Feb 2022

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri B.R. Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Shri Shaji Poulose, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 234E

145 to 148/Coch/2021 & 154 to 163/Coch/2021 for Assessment Years 2013-14 to 2015-16. 2. Shri Shaji Poulose, CA represented the assessee and Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR represented Revenue. 3. It was the submission of the learned A.R. that the appeals of the assessee have been dismissed on account of delay in filing the appeals

SHAFI MUSALIAR SAINALABDEEN MUSALIAR,KOLLAM vs. ITO, WARD 2, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the stay application is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 231/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 145(3)Section 148Section 292B

delay is condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee, late Shafi Musaliar Sainalabdeen Musaliar (“the deceased”), was engaged in the business of trading in cashew and cashew products in the name of Safi Cashew Industries, Kollam, Kerala, including local purchases/sales, inter-State transactions, import and export

KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(1) & TPS, THRISSUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 933/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Daskerala State Financial Dy. Cit, Circle - 1(1) & Tps Enterprises Ltd. Thrissur Bhadratha, Museum Road Vs. Chembukkavu - 680020 Thrissur [Pan:Aabct3817A] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Harikrishnanunny, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)

delay attending its filing. The restoration thereto for considering the same, challenged on the ground of the appeal having been already decided, did not find acceptance by the Hon’ble Apex Court, explaining that an order dismissing an appeal as barred by time is also an order disposing the appeal, since admitted, passed in exercise of the appellate power

M/S SANTHIMADOM HERBAL CITY TRUST,ERNAKULAM vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 920/COCH/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Nov 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamuna Devi, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 153C

condonation of delay, admit the instant appeals. Hearing was accordingly proceeded with. ITA Nos.920-921/Coch/2022 (AYs. 2008-09 & 2009-10) Santhimadom Herbal City Trust v. Asst. CIT 3. The assessee is a private trust formed on 01.01.2007 (02/11/2004, as per the impugned order) with the object of construction of a herbal city, apartments/villas, etc. for the promotion of herbal treatment, herbal

M/S SANTHIMADOM HERBAL CITY TRUST,ERNAKULAM vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 921/COCH/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamuna Devi, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 153C

condonation of delay, admit the instant appeals. Hearing was accordingly proceeded with. ITA Nos.920-921/Coch/2022 (AYs. 2008-09 & 2009-10) Santhimadom Herbal City Trust v. Asst. CIT 3. The assessee is a private trust formed on 01.01.2007 (02/11/2004, as per the impugned order) with the object of construction of a herbal city, apartments/villas, etc. for the promotion of herbal treatment, herbal