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.

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

Sorted by relevance

Patna472Delhi389Mumbai361Chennai298Pune235Bangalore226Kolkata145Karnataka131Ahmedabad111Hyderabad104Nagpur102Jaipur90Chandigarh79Visakhapatnam75Surat58Amritsar55Indore46Lucknow42Cochin38Calcutta34Raipur28Rajkot21Cuttack20Guwahati18Jodhpur17Agra17Allahabad10SC9Jabalpur8Ranchi5Telangana4Varanasi4Panaji4Orissa1Andhra Pradesh1Rajasthan1Dehradun1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)37Section 15436Section 80P(2)(a)29Section 80P27Deduction22Condonation of Delay18Section 143(1)17Addition to Income13Rectification u/s 154

M/S.THE NELLIAMPATHY TEA & PRODUCE CO.LTD,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1, ALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA

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

ITA 315/COCH/2018[1994-05]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 May 2019AY 1994-05

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

Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 220(2)Section 234DSection 23DSection 250Section 250(2)Section 80H

154 of the Act on 08.04.2015 which was received by the assessee on 17.04.2015. The assessee aggrieved by the said order filed a petition before Assessing Officer on 18.05.2015 and the same was I.T.A. No.315/Coch/2018 rejected by the Assessing Officer vide letter dated 20.05.2015. Therefore, according to the CIT(A), if the assessee is aggrieved by the order dated

Showing 1–20 of 38 · Page 1 of 2

13
Section 80P(2)10
Section 153C8
Section 153A8

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

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 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

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

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

section 154 of the Act on 28.04.2016 with the CPC, Bangalore and the rectification request was rejected by the CPC, Bangalore on 02.06.2016. 4. Against this, the assessee went in appeal before the CIT(A). 5. There was a delay of 201 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The assessee filed condonation petition explaining the reason

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

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

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,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

M/S.MAGNUM BUILDTECH,ALAPPUZHA vs. THE DCIT, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 317/COCH/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 May 2019AY 2006-07

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

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 40

condone the delay of 61 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal. A) The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is against law and facts and circumstances of the case. The order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a travesty of justice and cause

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 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

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

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

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