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 226(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Karnataka175Chennai132Delhi99Mumbai99Hyderabad54Pune52Raipur47Jaipur46Bangalore44Ahmedabad36Kolkata34Indore18Guwahati16Surat16Lucknow14Jodhpur13Cuttack12Visakhapatnam7Nagpur7SC6Panaji6Chandigarh4Telangana4Cochin4Rajkot4Rajasthan3Calcutta2Kerala1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Orissa1Andhra Pradesh1Allahabad1Varanasi1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 2015Section 80P4Deduction3Section 194A2Section 271(1)2Section 2502TDS2

M/S. PARAVUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK,KOLLAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeal and stay petition filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 767/COCH/2023[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2024

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri Santosh P. Abraham, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, D.R
Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

3) of I.T. Act. M/s. Paravur Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., Thiruvananthapuram Page 16 of 23 4.7 Further, at this stage, it is pertinent to mention the various precedents as follows: (i) Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramlal, Motilal and Chhotelal Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. (1962) 2 SCR 762, observed as under: “In construing

MRS. THANKAMANI VARADARAJULU,KOTTAYAM vs. THE DCIT,CEN-CIRCLE-2, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, appeals of the assesses are allowed

ITA 374/COCH/2019[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Sept 2019AY 2002-03

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

Section 271(1)

3,82,226/-. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961was initiated, in completing the assessment. The only addition made in the assessment was a sum of Rs 2,01,860/- in respect of certain deposit in the assessee’s Account No.12669 with Canara Bank, Kottayam on various dates in January 2002. On the ground that

STATE BANK OF INDIA , THALASSERY( ERSTWHILE STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE),KANNUR vs. ITO (TDS), KANNUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed on the aforesaid terms

ITA 926/COCH/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalstate Bank Of India (Erstwhile Sbt) Income Tax Officer-Tds Thalassery Branch Aayakar Bhavan Gundert Road Vs. Konnothumchal Thalassery 670101 Chovva P.O., Kannur 670006 [Pan: Aaacs8577K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri A. Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 10(5)Section 12Section 192Section 201Section 286

sections will have to be considered for the purpose. As we see it, the matter is principally factual, as the question of existence or otherwise of ‘sufficient cause’ invariably is. It is nobody’s case, nor could be, that the email, even if it came to the notice of the staff, it would yet be entitled to ignore

CANARA BANK,TRIVANDRUM vs. DCIT (TDS), TRIVANDRUM

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

ITA 474/COCH/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

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

Section 194ASection 201

condone the short delay of 15 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The CIT(A) has erred in charging interest u/s. 201(1A) from the date on which tax was deductable and upto 31/03/2015 ignoring the contention of the appellant that Supreme Court