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.

31 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 154(7)clear

Sorted by relevance

Patna471Mumbai245Delhi178Chennai167Bangalore135Kolkata95Pune91Ahmedabad72Hyderabad65Jaipur60Chandigarh57Surat42Lucknow35Nagpur34Visakhapatnam31Cochin31Indore30Raipur27Rajkot17Agra15Amritsar11Cuttack10Jodhpur10SC9Jabalpur8Guwahati8Ranchi5Panaji4Allahabad2Varanasi2Dehradun1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)32Section 80P(2)(a)25Section 15417Section 80P16Condonation of Delay16Deduction15Section 143(1)12Addition to Income12Rectification u/s 154

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)

7 of 19 3.1 Before us, the ld. A.R. of the assessee submitted that if the delay is not condoned, the assessee would be put to a great hardship and irreparable injury and on the other hand, no hardship or injury would be caused to the revenue if condonation of delay is allowed. 3.2 The ld. D.R. on the other

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

Showing 1–20 of 31 · Page 1 of 2

10
Section 153C8
Section 153A8
Business Income8

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)

7 of 19 3.1 Before us, the ld. A.R. of the assessee submitted that if the delay is not condoned, the assessee would be put to a great hardship and irreparable injury and on the other hand, no hardship or injury would be caused to the revenue if condonation of delay is allowed. 3.2 The ld. D.R. on the other

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,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 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,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

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

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

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)

7. At the outset, we find that there is a delay of 415 days in filing the present appeal. The appellant filed a petition seeking Kadavathur Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. condonation of delay on the ground that appellant is pursuing alternative remedy by filing section 154

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)

7. At the outset, we find that there is a delay of 415 days in filing the present appeal. The appellant filed a petition seeking Kadavathur Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. condonation of delay on the ground that appellant is pursuing alternative remedy by filing section 154

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)

7. At the outset, we find that there is a delay of 415 days in filing the present appeal. The appellant filed a petition seeking Kadavathur Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. condonation of delay on the ground that appellant is pursuing alternative remedy by filing section 154

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

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

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

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

PERINGANDOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVA BANK LTD,ATHANI, THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THRISSUR

In the result, we dismiss these I

ITA 230/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2017-18 Peringandoor Service Cooperative Bank Ltd .......... Appellant 11/102A, Athani P O, Athani, Thrissur-680581. Pan: Aadap3407G Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward-2(1), Thrissur. Appellant By: Shri Ramdas M, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 02.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.06.2025

For Appellant: Shri Ramdas M, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 63Section 64Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

154 before the National Faceless Appeal Centre. We are of the considered opinion that the appellant was pursuing alternative remedy. In the absence of any 3 Peringandoor service Coop Bank Ltd vs.ITO contrary, we condone the delay of 327 days and admit the appeal for adjudication. 6. The issue in the present appeal relates to the eligibility of interest income

KOLLOORVILA SERVICE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED Q214,KOLLAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICEER, KOLLAM

Appeal is allowed and later appeal

ITA 667/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: ---- None ----For Respondent: Smt.V.Swarnalatha, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271BSection 273Section 44Section 44ASection 80P

Section 271(B) of the Income Tax Act 1961 imposing maximum penalty of Rs.150000/-on 02.03.2022. 3 ITA Nos.667 & 879/Coch/2023. Kolloorvila Service Co-op Society Ltd. 5. Aggrieved by the order imposing penalty the assessee preferred appeal before the first Appellate Authority on 02.07.2022. the first Appellate Authority without granting opportunity for personal hearing and does not consider the argument

KOLLOORVILA SERVICE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED Q214,KOLLAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, KOLLAM

Appeal is allowed and later appeal

ITA 879/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: ---- None ----For Respondent: Smt.V.Swarnalatha, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271BSection 273Section 44Section 44ASection 80P

Section 271(B) of the Income Tax Act 1961 imposing maximum penalty of Rs.150000/-on 02.03.2022. 3 ITA Nos.667 & 879/Coch/2023. Kolloorvila Service Co-op Society Ltd. 5. Aggrieved by the order imposing penalty the assessee preferred appeal before the first Appellate Authority on 02.07.2022. the first Appellate Authority without granting opportunity for personal hearing and does not consider the argument