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.

4 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 194C(6)clear

Sorted by relevance

Kolkata51Mumbai46Chennai46Jaipur35Delhi33Karnataka22Indore15Bangalore13Raipur12Pune12Hyderabad11Ahmedabad8Lucknow8Patna6Rajkot4Cuttack4Cochin4Chandigarh3Amritsar3Ranchi2Varanasi2Visakhapatnam2Surat2Allahabad2Jabalpur1Nagpur1Panaji1Jodhpur1

Key Topics

Section 80P10Section 566Section 271C4Section 403Section 273B3Section 2502Section 80P(4)2Section 80P(2)2Deduction2

VISWANATHA SHENOY,ERNAKULAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(2), KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 34/COCH/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Feb 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2007-08

For Respondent: Shri Nithyananda
Section 194CSection 40

section 194C of Page 2 of 4 the Act and therefore the AO had issued a notice proposing to disallow the expenses u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The assessee submitted that he has obtained the declaration in form 15-I as per Rule 29D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 and by mistakenly the said forms were

M/S.VIJAYA HOSPITALITY AND RESORTS LTD,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ADCIT(TDS), COCHIN

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

TDS2
ITA 96/COCH/2015[2010-11]Status: Heard
ITAT Cochin
24 Jun 2022
AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Thomas Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamunna Devi, Sr.DR
Section 271CSection 273Section 273B

condone the delay in filing this appeal and proceed to dispose of this appeal on merits. 3. The solitary issue raised is whether the CIT(A) is justified in confirming the Assessing Officer’s order, wherein penalty 2 ITA No.96/Coch/2015. M/s.Vijaya Hospitality and Resorts Limited. has been imposed u/s 271C of the I.T.Act amounting to Rs.9

M/S KOTTAYAM SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,KANNUR vs. ITO WARD 2, KANNUR

ITA 36/COCH/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Aruj Raj S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Section 2Section 22Section 250Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(4)

section 80P deduction claim in principle and leave it open for the learned Assessing Officer to verify all necessary facts, in consequential computation as per law. Ordered accordingly. 7. Our attention is next invited to the learned lower authorities action making sec.40(a)(ia) read with Rule 194C and sec.36(i)(viia) disallowance(s) assessment year-wise, respectively. There would

M/S KOTTAYAM SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,KANNUR vs. ITO WARD 2, KANNUR

ITA 37/COCH/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Aruj Raj S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Section 2Section 22Section 250Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(4)

section 80P deduction claim in principle and leave it open for the learned Assessing Officer to verify all necessary facts, in consequential computation as per law. Ordered accordingly. 7. Our attention is next invited to the learned lower authorities action making sec.40(a)(ia) read with Rule 194C and sec.36(i)(viia) disallowance(s) assessment year-wise, respectively. There would