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.

216 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 15(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai1,803 Mumbai1,596 Delhi1,582 Pune945 Kolkata920 Bangalore769 Hyderabad725 Ahmedabad607 Jaipur520 Nagpur325 Chandigarh313 Surat306 Visakhapatnam273 Patna225 Karnataka221 Raipur218 Cochin216 Indore190 Amritsar164 Cuttack163 Lucknow147 Rajkot121 Panaji83 Jodhpur56 Calcutta54 Guwahati49 SC47 Agra36 Dehradun33 Telangana31 Jabalpur23 Allahabad21 Varanasi20 Ranchi12 Rajasthan6 Orissa6 Kerala5 Himachal Pradesh4 A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2 Andhra Pradesh2 R.M. LODHA ANIL R. DAVE1 Punjab & Haryana1 DIPAK MISRA R.K. AGRAWAL PRAFULLA C. PANT1 A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1 Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 26352 Condonation of Delay45 Section 143(3)42 TDS38 Addition to Income35 Section 80P28 Section 12A28 Section 20027 Section 206C27 Section 19227 Section 13122 Deduction17

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)

15. On August 24, 2005, assessment order was passed. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied in respect of a portion of the order, the petitioner had filed an application under section 264 and it was rejected on July 21, 2006. Thus, the petitioner had a cause of action with reference to the assessment year 2003-04 on or before March

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 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

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 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 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 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 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 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.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 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 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 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

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

15-07-2024 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal arises out of order passed by NFAC, Delhi dated 22.11.2022 for A.Y. 2009-10. 2. At the outset, it is submitted that, there is delay of 12 days in filing the present appeal before this Tribunal. The Ld.AR furnished affidavit for condonation of delay that reads as under: Page

DCIT, TRIVANDRUM vs. BRAHMOS AEROSPACE( THIRUVANANTHAPURAM) LTD, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal filedby

ITA 742/COCH/2019[2002-03]Status: HeardITAT Cochin23 Feb 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ramit Kochar, Am Deputy Commissioner Brahmos Aerospace Of Income Tax, (Thiruvananthapuram) Ltd., Circle-1(1), V. Chackai, Thiruvananthapuram Beach Post, Kerala Tiruvananthapuram, Kerala Pan – Aabck2217K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Smt. Jamunna Devi, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Abraham Joseph Markos, Adv

Section 139(1)Section 139(3)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 80

condone the delay and treat the return as valid , even if the said defect is not rectified within the period stipulated by AO in its notice u/s 139(9) of the 1961 Act, but the said defect stood rectified before assessment is completed. It is admitted position that the AO did not issue any such notice

M/S SANTHIMADOM AYURNIKETHAN HEALTH RESORT & RESEARCH INSTITUTE TRUST,KOCHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 919/COCH/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR

Section 153ASection 153CSection 234A

condoning the delay, admit the appeal for being decided on merits. 3. It was, at the outset, submitted by Shri Joseph, the learned counsel for the assessee, that only the grounds of appeal in relation to levy of interest u/ss. 234A and 234B of the Act are being pressed. And toward which he would take us through the appeal memo

M/S SANTHIMADOM AYURNIKETHAN HEALTH RESORT & RESEARCH INSTITUTE TRUST,KOCHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 918/COCH/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 May 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR

Section 153ASection 153CSection 234A

condoning the delay, admit the appeal for being decided on merits. 3. It was, at the outset, submitted by Shri Joseph, the learned counsel for the assessee, that only the grounds of appeal in relation to levy of interest u/ss. 234A and 234B of the Act are being pressed. And toward which he would take us through the appeal memo

M/S SANTHIMADOM AYURNIKETHAN HEALTH RESORT & RESEARCH INSTITUTE TRUST,ERNAKULAM vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 916/COCH/2022[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 May 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR

Section 153ASection 153CSection 234A

condoning the delay, admit the appeal for being decided on merits. 3. It was, at the outset, submitted by Shri Joseph, the learned counsel for the assessee, that only the grounds of appeal in relation to levy of interest u/ss. 234A and 234B of the Act are being pressed. And toward which he would take us through the appeal memo

M/S SANTHIMADOM AYURNIKETHAN HEALTH RESORT & RESEARCH INSTITUTE TRUST,KOCHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 917/COCH/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 May 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR

Section 153ASection 153CSection 234A

condoning the delay, admit the appeal for being decided on merits. 3. It was, at the outset, submitted by Shri Joseph, the learned counsel for the assessee, that only the grounds of appeal in relation to levy of interest u/ss. 234A and 234B of the Act are being pressed. And toward which he would take us through the appeal memo

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THRISSUR vs. THE CSB BANK LTD, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 542/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Satish Modi, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT DR

Section 115Section 115JSection 144BSection 147Section 250

condone the delay of 60 days in filing the present appeal and proceed to examine the grounds raised in the present appeal. 2. The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal : “1. The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], New Delhi in DIN and Order No. DIN ITBA/APLS/S/250/2024-25/1074993866(1) dated 25.03.2025 against assessment

Showing 1–20 of 216 · Page 1 of 11

...