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.

23 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 150clear

Sorted by relevance

Patna304Chennai278Mumbai137Delhi117Ahmedabad104Karnataka102Kolkata86Pune81Hyderabad80Bangalore78Jaipur63Chandigarh39Calcutta34Nagpur27Cochin23Visakhapatnam21Indore21Surat21Lucknow18Rajkot17Cuttack10Amritsar10Allahabad8Varanasi7Panaji6Kerala6Guwahati5Raipur5Jodhpur4SC3Agra2Jabalpur2Dehradun2Telangana1Andhra Pradesh1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 26344Section 143(3)26Section 13122Section 153C12Section 142A11Section 36(1)9Section 143(1)8Section 43B7Addition to Income

M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES,TRICHUR vs. THE DCIT(, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of

ITA 495/COCH/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

Section 131Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

150 ITR 643 (Cal.) wherein it was held that the purpose for which alone a valuation report could be utilised, namely for completion of assessment in conformity with the valuation report was no longer existent, the assessment having been completed in the meantime. In such circumstances, to allow the assailed valuation proceedings to continue, would mitigate against well known canons

M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES,TRICHUR vs. THE DCIT, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of

Showing 1–20 of 23 · Page 1 of 2

6
Deduction5
Exemption4
Condonation of Delay3
ITA 497/COCH/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

Section 131Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

150 ITR 643 (Cal.) wherein it was held that the purpose for which alone a valuation report could be utilised, namely for completion of assessment in conformity with the valuation report was no longer existent, the assessment having been completed in the meantime. In such circumstances, to allow the assailed valuation proceedings to continue, would mitigate against well known canons

THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKKODE, KOZHIKKODE vs. M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of

ITA 375/COCH/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

Section 131Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

150 ITR 643 (Cal.) wherein it was held that the purpose for which alone a valuation report could be utilised, namely for completion of assessment in conformity with the valuation report was no longer existent, the assessment having been completed in the meantime. In such circumstances, to allow the assailed valuation proceedings to continue, would mitigate against well known canons

M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES,TRICHUR vs. THE DCIT, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of

ITA 498/COCH/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

Section 131Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

150 ITR 643 (Cal.) wherein it was held that the purpose for which alone a valuation report could be utilised, namely for completion of assessment in conformity with the valuation report was no longer existent, the assessment having been completed in the meantime. In such circumstances, to allow the assailed valuation proceedings to continue, would mitigate against well known canons

M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES,TRICHUR vs. THE DCIT, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of

ITA 496/COCH/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

Section 131Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

150 ITR 643 (Cal.) wherein it was held that the purpose for which alone a valuation report could be utilised, namely for completion of assessment in conformity with the valuation report was no longer existent, the assessment having been completed in the meantime. In such circumstances, to allow the assailed valuation proceedings to continue, would mitigate against well known canons

M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES,TRICHUR vs. THE DCIT, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of

ITA 499/COCH/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

Section 131Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

150 ITR 643 (Cal.) wherein it was held that the purpose for which alone a valuation report could be utilised, namely for completion of assessment in conformity with the valuation report was no longer existent, the assessment having been completed in the meantime. In such circumstances, to allow the assailed valuation proceedings to continue, would mitigate against well known canons

THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKKODE, KOZHIKKODE vs. M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of

ITA 374/COCH/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

Section 131Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

150 ITR 643 (Cal.) wherein it was held that the purpose for which alone a valuation report could be utilised, namely for completion of assessment in conformity with the valuation report was no longer existent, the assessment having been completed in the meantime. In such circumstances, to allow the assailed valuation proceedings to continue, would mitigate against well known canons

THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKKODE, KOZHIKKODE vs. M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of

ITA 376/COCH/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

Section 131Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

150 ITR 643 (Cal.) wherein it was held that the purpose for which alone a valuation report could be utilised, namely for completion of assessment in conformity with the valuation report was no longer existent, the assessment having been completed in the meantime. In such circumstances, to allow the assailed valuation proceedings to continue, would mitigate against well known canons

THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKKODE, KOZHIKKODE vs. M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of

ITA 377/COCH/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

Section 131Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

150 ITR 643 (Cal.) wherein it was held that the purpose for which alone a valuation report could be utilised, namely for completion of assessment in conformity with the valuation report was no longer existent, the assessment having been completed in the meantime. In such circumstances, to allow the assailed valuation proceedings to continue, would mitigate against well known canons

THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKKODE, KOZHIKKODE vs. M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of

ITA 378/COCH/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

Section 131Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

150 ITR 643 (Cal.) wherein it was held that the purpose for which alone a valuation report could be utilised, namely for completion of assessment in conformity with the valuation report was no longer existent, the assessment having been completed in the meantime. In such circumstances, to allow the assailed valuation proceedings to continue, would mitigate against well known canons

THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKKODE, KOZHIKKODE vs. M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of

ITA 379/COCH/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

Section 131Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

150 ITR 643 (Cal.) wherein it was held that the purpose for which alone a valuation report could be utilised, namely for completion of assessment in conformity with the valuation report was no longer existent, the assessment having been completed in the meantime. In such circumstances, to allow the assailed valuation proceedings to continue, would mitigate against well known canons

AY BROADCAST FOUNDATION,THIRUVALLA vs. THE ACIT, CIR-1,, THIRUVALLA

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

ITA 263/COCH/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Sept 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. No.263/Coch/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Ay Broadcast Foundation, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Gfa Buildings, Income-Tax, Circle-1, Thiruvalla. Manjadi, Thiruvalla. [Pan:Aafca 3216]

Section 11Section 12ASection 143Section 143(1)Section 154

150/- after denying the exemption claimed under section 11 of the Act. The intimation under section 143(1) of the Act was I.T.A. No.263 /Coch/2018 received by the assessee on 18.03.2016. Subsequently, the assessee filed rectification petition under section 154 of the Act on 28.04.2016 with the CPC, Bangalore and the rectification request was rejected by the CPC, Bangalore

KATHIKODE CHARITABLE TRUST,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER., THRISSUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes, and it’s stay petitions dismissed as infructuous

ITA 947/COCH/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Jojo, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2

section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), raising demands, including interest, at Rs.28.47 lakhs and Rs.37.75 lakhs for the two consecutive years respectively. The assessee ITA Nos. 947 & 948/Coch/2022 (AY : 2014-15) Kathikode Charitable Trust v. ITO admittedly did not act thereon, stating that it was ‘awaiting’ – whatever that would mean; Sh. Jojo, the learned counsel

KATHIKODE CHARITABLE TRUST,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THRISSUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes, and it’s stay petitions dismissed as infructuous

ITA 948/COCH/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Jojo, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2

section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), raising demands, including interest, at Rs.28.47 lakhs and Rs.37.75 lakhs for the two consecutive years respectively. The assessee ITA Nos. 947 & 948/Coch/2022 (AY : 2014-15) Kathikode Charitable Trust v. ITO admittedly did not act thereon, stating that it was ‘awaiting’ – whatever that would mean; Sh. Jojo, the learned counsel

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTTAYAM vs. THOMAS CHANDY, KANJIRAPALLY

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 243/COCH/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2012-13 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax .......... Appellant Public Library Buiulding, Shastri Road Kottayam 686001 [Pan: Adzpc3009P] Vs. Thomas Chandy .......... Respondent Karimpanal Post, Post Box No. Vizhikithode, Kanjirpally 686507 Appellant By: Smt. Veni Raj, Cit-Dr Respondent By: Shri R. Krishnan, Ca Date Of Hearing: 12.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2025

For Appellant: Smt. Veni Raj, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri R. Krishnan, CA
Section 148Section 2(47)

150 cents in Kakkanad, Ernakulam. The appellant executed a registered power of attorney vide document No. 375/2011 on 23.11.2011 for development of that land in favour of M/s Skyline Foundations & Structures Pvt. Ltd. In addition to the execution of power of attorney, the appellant also entered into an agreement with builder. The AO, after making reference to some clauses

INCOMETAX OFFICER, WARD-, KOTTAYAM vs. PUTHENKUDY PAULOSE BABU, KOTTAYAM

The appeal is allowed

ITA 775/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 251(1)(a)Section 68Section 69Section 69A

delay is condoned and the appeals are admitted for adjudication. 3. Coming to the Revenue’s sole substantive ground seeking to revive sec.69 addition of Rs.68 lakhs made in the course of assessment herein dated 31.12.2019; learned DR invited our attention to the learned CIT(A)’s impugned lower appellate discussion to this effect reading as under ; “7. During

BENEESH KUMAR,KOCHI vs. ITO, NON CORP WARD 1(1), KOCHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1161/COCH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 Beneesh Kumar .......... Appellant Madathuparambu House, Thattzham Road Vaduthala, Kochi 682023 [Pan: Agipb7548Q] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Non-Corporate Ward, Kochi Appellant By: Shri Ramesh Cherian, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Omanakutan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 19.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.04.2025

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh Cherian, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Omanakutan, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 282(1)Section 54Section 54F

150/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), NC, Kochi (hereinafter called "the AO") vide order dated 25.02.2016 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). While doing so, the AO disallowed the claim for deduction u/s. 54 of the Act. 3. The factual background

SRI.PURUSOTHAMAN K.K.,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ITO, WD-3, , THIRUVALLA

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

ITA 51/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Jun 2019AY 2014-15

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

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

condone the delay of 79 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: A: The orders of the authorities below in so far as they are against the appellant are opposed to law, facts and circumstances of the case. B: The averments made before the first appellate

M/S KERALA STATE CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LTD,TRIVANRUM vs. DCIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 699/COCH/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 Mar 2020AY 2010-11

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

Section 2(24)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

condone the delay of 36 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. The assessee has raised the following common grounds of appeal except for variation in figures: 1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming disallowance of Employees Contribution to PF/ESI under section 36(1) (va) of the Income

M/S KERALA STATE CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LTD,TRIVANRUM vs. DCIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 698/COCH/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 Mar 2020AY 2007-08

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

Section 2(24)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

condone the delay of 36 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. The assessee has raised the following common grounds of appeal except for variation in figures: 1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming disallowance of Employees Contribution to PF/ESI under section 36(1) (va) of the Income