Search: condonation of delay | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

128 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 148clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai701 Mumbai700 Delhi501 Kolkata427 Hyderabad381 Ahmedabad365 Pune329 Bangalore276 Jaipur270 Surat233 Chandigarh155 Visakhapatnam147 Karnataka141 Indore134 Cochin128 Amritsar113 Lucknow88 Patna76 Rajkot73 Nagpur58 Raipur52 Calcutta46 Panaji44 Cuttack40 Agra37 Jabalpur31 Guwahati26 Allahabad22 Dehradun15 Varanasi14 SC9 Telangana8 Jodhpur7 Ranchi7 Himachal Pradesh2 Punjab & Haryana2 Orissa2 Rajasthan1 Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 14898 Section 80P75 Condonation of Delay67 Section 139(1)57 Addition to Income37 Section 14729 Section 12A28 TDS25 Section 14424

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

delay was condoned vide order dated 19.05.2023. However, prior to this, the case was taken up for scrutiny under Section 148

Showing 1–20 of 128 · Page 1 of 7

Section 201(1)24

Section 271(1)(c)22

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

THRISSUR DISTRICT POLICE CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THRISSUR

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

ITA 408/COCH/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri M.Ramdas, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. A.R

Section 154Section 250Section 253(5)

condoning the delay of 96 days in filing both these appeals before this Tribunal and accordinglywe admit the same for adjudication. 4. Thebrief fact of the case are that the Assesseebeing an employees' co-operative society formed for the welfare of employees of Kerala Police department of Thrissur District and is registered under Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969.The Assessee

THRISSUR DISTRICT POLICE CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THRISSUR

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

ITA 409/COCH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri M.Ramdas, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. A.R

Section 154Section 250Section 253(5)

condoning the delay of 96 days in filing both these appeals before this Tribunal and accordinglywe admit the same for adjudication. 4. Thebrief fact of the case are that the Assesseebeing an employees' co-operative society formed for the welfare of employees of Kerala Police department of Thrissur District and is registered under Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969.The Assessee

THE KATTOOR SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), THRISSUR, THRISSUR

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

ITA 559/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Amaljith P.J., CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69ASection 80P

section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was filed by the appellant for AY 2014-15. However, the National Faceless Assessment Centre (hereinafter called "the AO"), based on the information that the appellant made cash deposit formed an opinion that income escaped assessment to tax. Accordingly, a notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued

THE KATTOOR SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), THRISSUR, THRISSUR

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

ITA 561/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Amaljith P.J., CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69ASection 80P

section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was filed by the appellant for AY 2014-15. However, the National Faceless Assessment Centre (hereinafter called "the AO"), based on the information that the appellant made cash deposit formed an opinion that income escaped assessment to tax. Accordingly, a notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued

THE KATTOOR SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), THRISSUR, THRISSUR

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

ITA 560/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Amaljith P.J., CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69ASection 80P

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 8. The learned counsel for the assessee contended that the addition made u/s. 69A of the Act would only enhance the business profit of the appellant, such business profits qualifies for deduction u/s. 80P in terms of CBDT Circular No. 37/2016 dated 02.11.2016. It is further submitted that provisions of section

PANTHEERANKAVE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK,KOZHIKODE vs. ITO,WARD -2(3), KOZHIKODE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 368/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2017-18 Pantheerankav Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant Olavanna, Kozhikode 673019 [Pan: Aaaap6394F] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Kozhikode .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Arun Raj S., Advocate Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 04.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.06.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 12.12.2024 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Appellant Is A Co-Operative Society Registered Under The Kerala State Co-Operative Societies Act, 1969. It Is Classified As A Primary Agricultural Credit Co-Operative Society. The Appellant Had Not Filed Return Of Income Under The Provisions Of Section 139(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) For Ay 2017-18. Based On The Information That The Appellant Made

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80P

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 6. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. Admittedly, the appellant society had not filed return of income for the assessment year under consideration. Therefore, it can be said that there was no claim made in the return of income. In the absence of claim

SAHADEVAN K ,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, WD-1(3), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 464/COCH/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Sri.Mathew JosephFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR

Section 10(37)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

condone the delay of filing this appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to dispose of the appeal on merits. 4. Brief facts of the case are as follows: The assessee is an individual. For the assessment year 2010-2011, the assessee had filed return of income declaring total income of Rs.2,35,130 comprising of income under the ITA No.116

SAHADEVAN K ,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, WD-1(3), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 116/COCH/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Sri.Mathew JosephFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR

Section 10(37)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

condone the delay of filing this appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to dispose of the appeal on merits. 4. Brief facts of the case are as follows: The assessee is an individual. For the assessment year 2010-2011, the assessee had filed return of income declaring total income of Rs.2,35,130 comprising of income under the ITA No.116

VENGOLA SERVICE CO OP BANK LTD,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO, WARD 2, ALUVA

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

ITA 565/COCH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Keshav Dubey, Jm Assessment Year: 2018-19 Vengola Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant 13/621 Ab, Kunnathunadu Vengola P.O., Ernakulam 683556 [Pan: Aaaav1709N] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward - 2, Aluva Appellant By: Shri Lokanathan R., Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.01.2025

For Appellant: Shri Lokanathan R., CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 270ASection 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80P

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 6. The CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal solely on the reason that the return of income was filed belatedly. This issue is no longer res integra, as it is covered by the judgement of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High court in the case of Nileshwar Range Kallu Chethu Vyavasaya Thozhilali

GEM TECH SOLUTIONS P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

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

ITA 96/COCH/2023[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 May 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.Govind G.Nair,AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR

condone the delay of 48 days and proceed to decide these appeals. 5. The assessee has raised six grounds of appeal, out of which, ground No. (a) to (d) are related to the initiation of proceedings under the provisions of section 148

M/S.GEM TECH SOLUTIONS P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

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

ITA 97/COCH/2023[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 May 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.Govind G.Nair,AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR

condone the delay of 48 days and proceed to decide these appeals. 5. The assessee has raised six grounds of appeal, out of which, ground No. (a) to (d) are related to the initiation of proceedings under the provisions of section 148

GEM TECH SOLUTIONS P LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), TRIVANDRUM

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

ITA 38/COCH/2023[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 May 2025AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.Govind G.Nair,AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR

condone the delay of 48 days and proceed to decide these appeals. 5. The assessee has raised six grounds of appeal, out of which, ground No. (a) to (d) are related to the initiation of proceedings under the provisions of section 148

SNDP YOGAM VAIKOM UNION,KOTTAYAM vs. ITO WARD-1, KOTTAYAM

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

ITA 823/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Divya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148

section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for AY 2015-16. Subsequently, based on the information that the appellant made cash deposits in the account maintained with Union Bank of India aggregating to Rs. 4,16,87,460/- during the financial year 2014-15 relevant to AY 2015-16, the Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department (hereinafter

SNDP YOGAM VAIKOM UNION,KOTTAYAM vs. ITO, WARD-1, KOTTAYAM

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

ITA 824/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Divya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148

section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for AY 2015-16. Subsequently, based on the information that the appellant made cash deposits in the account maintained with Union Bank of India aggregating to Rs. 4,16,87,460/- during the financial year 2014-15 relevant to AY 2015-16, the Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department (hereinafter

ERAMALLOOR SERVICE CO-PERATIVE BANK LTDS NO.1175,CHERTHALA vs. ITO, WARD-1, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 820/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Sri.C.A.Jojo, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 142(1)(i)Section 144Section 250Section 80A(5)Section 80P

condonation of delay process, and therefore, the assessee lost its opportunity to make a valid claim for deduction. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 6. During the hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (“learned AR”) submitted that the assessee being a co-operative society is not required to file its return of income, and thus the filing

M/S UNITED TROPICAN VENEERS PVT. LTD.,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. DCIT, PATHANAMTHITTA

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

ITA 186/COCH/2019[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Feb 2020AY 2000-01

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

For Appellant: Sri.M.S.Venkitachalam, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Mritinjuya Sharma, Sr.DR

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

Section 271 (1) (c) was passed on 24.03.2010 and despite extreme difficulties the Company had filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-Tax, without any delay. However due to our inability to appoint a proper counsel, because of the dire financial condition, no representations could be made before the Learned CIT(A), when the matter was posted for hearing

M/S UNITED TROPICAN VENEERS PVT. LTD.,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ACIT CIR-1, THIRUVALLA , THIRUVALLA

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

ITA 189/COCH/2019[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Feb 2020AY 2003-04

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

For Appellant: Sri.M.S.Venkitachalam, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Mritinjuya Sharma, Sr.DR

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

Section 271 (1) (c) was passed on 24.03.2010 and despite extreme difficulties the Company had filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-Tax, without any delay. However due to our inability to appoint a proper counsel, because of the dire financial condition, no representations could be made before the Learned CIT(A), when the matter was posted for hearing

M/S UNITED TROPICAN VENEERS PVT. LTD.,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ACIT, CIR-1, THIRUVALLA, THIRUVALLA

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

ITA 190/COCH/2019[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Feb 2020AY 2004-05

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

For Appellant: Sri.M.S.Venkitachalam, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Mritinjuya Sharma, Sr.DR

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

Section 271 (1) (c) was passed on 24.03.2010 and despite extreme difficulties the Company had filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-Tax, without any delay. However due to our inability to appoint a proper counsel, because of the dire financial condition, no representations could be made before the Learned CIT(A), when the matter was posted for hearing