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.

42 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 154clear

Sorted by relevance

Patna471Mumbai439Delhi423Chennai356Bangalore253Pune239Kolkata170Karnataka131Ahmedabad110Nagpur109Hyderabad106Chandigarh93Jaipur89Surat59Amritsar50Indore49Lucknow45Visakhapatnam44Cochin42Calcutta37Raipur28Rajkot21Cuttack20Agra19Jodhpur12Guwahati10SC9Jabalpur9Panaji6Ranchi5Telangana4Varanasi4Allahabad2Dehradun2Andhra Pradesh1Rajasthan1Orissa1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)32Section 80P(2)(a)28Section 80P24Section 15420Deduction17Condonation of Delay16Section 234E15Limitation/Time-bar15Section 143(1)

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)

154 r.w.s. 250 of the Act on 01/05/2024 which was also dismissed by the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, thereafter the assessee filed the present appeal before this Tribunal with a delay of 96 days ITA Nos.408 & 409/Coch/2024 Thrissur District Police Cooperative Society Ltd., Thrissur Page 8 of 19 in both these appeals & accordingly requested to condone the delay

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

Showing 1–20 of 42 · Page 1 of 3

12
Addition to Income12
Rectification u/s 15412
TDS9

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)

154 r.w.s. 250 of the Act on 01/05/2024 which was also dismissed by the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, thereafter the assessee filed the present appeal before this Tribunal with a delay of 96 days ITA Nos.408 & 409/Coch/2024 Thrissur District Police Cooperative Society Ltd., Thrissur Page 8 of 19 in both these appeals & accordingly requested to condone the delay

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,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

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

KADAVATHUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,THALASESRY,KANNUR vs. ITO, WARD 2, KANNUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 459/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

section 154 petition before the learned CIT(A). Since the learned CIT(A) had not passed any order pursuant to the rectification petition, immediately appeal was filed. Thus, it was submitted that the delay had occurred and, therefore, the delay may be condoned

KADAVATHUR SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD,KANNUR vs. ITO, WARD 2, KANNUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 460/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

section 154 petition before the learned CIT(A). Since the learned CIT(A) had not passed any order pursuant to the rectification petition, immediately appeal was filed. Thus, it was submitted that the delay had occurred and, therefore, the delay may be condoned

KADAVATHUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,KANNUR vs. ITO, WARD 2, KANNUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 461/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

section 154 petition before the learned CIT(A). Since the learned CIT(A) had not passed any order pursuant to the rectification petition, immediately appeal was filed. Thus, it was submitted that the delay had occurred and, therefore, the delay may be condoned

SEA CASTLE AN AYURVEDIC AND LEISURE HOTEL(HILL & SEA VIEW AYURVEDIC BEACH RESORT),THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ITO, WARD 1(4), RANGE I, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

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

ITA 988/COCH/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

For Appellant: Ms. Krishna K., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 40Section 43B

section 43B of the Act. The AO also made addition of Rs. 2,50,000/- being the excess remuneration paid to partners u/s. 40(b) of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. 5. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before

SEA CASTLE AN AYURVEDIC AND LEISURE HOTEL(HILL & SEA VIEW AYURVEDIC BEACH RESORT),THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ITO, WARD 1(4), RANGE I, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

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

ITA 987/COCH/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

For Appellant: Ms. Krishna K., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 40Section 43B

section 43B of the Act. The AO also made addition of Rs. 2,50,000/- being the excess remuneration paid to partners u/s. 40(b) of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. 5. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before

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

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

CLINT MARTEL WILFRED,ERNAKULAM vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE, KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 206/COCH/2021[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Dec 2022AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Saroj Kumar Parida, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR
Section 143(2)Section 154Section 50C

154 dated 17.11.2020 was passed for the reason that for the purpose of stamp duty in respect of the property sold by the assessee, the value considered was Rs.1,22,94,000 whereas the assessee has computed the capital gain taking the sale consideration as per the Deed i.e., Rs.1,01,40,000. The assessee contended before the AO that

THE KOOVAPPALLY SERVICE CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO 3949,KOVAPPALLY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2 KOTTAYAM, KOTTAYAM

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

ITA 389/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Koovappally Service Co-Op. .......... Appellant Bank Ltd. No. 3949, Koovappally Kanjirappally, Kottayam [Pan: Aaajt 0739 R] Vs. Ito, Ward-2, Kottayam .......... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Prashanth Srinivas, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 80P

condonation of delay on the following grounds:- “a. The appellant is not tech-savvy and is not well-versed in the operation of the Income Tax e-filing portal. The said portal and related communications were being handled by the appellant's Chartered Accountant's office. Due to inadvertence and oversight, both the appellant and the Chartered Accountant missed

ENERGY MANAGEMENT CENTRE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THIRUVANATHAPURAM

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, with directions as above

ITA 174/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 143(1)Section 154

delay is condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. I.T.A. No.174/COCH/2025 Energy Management Centre 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a government-owned charitable institution functioning with the objective of promoting energy savings in the State as part of the National Power Policy. The assessee filed its return of income for the year under

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

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. It was the submission that these

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

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. It was the submission that these