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.

7 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 246clear

Sorted by relevance

Karnataka127Mumbai72Delhi67Kolkata39Pune32Chennai30Jaipur23Ahmedabad21Bangalore16Nagpur14Lucknow12Visakhapatnam11Hyderabad11Indore9Surat8Cochin7Ranchi7Telangana7Cuttack7Chandigarh6Jodhpur3Orissa3Patna3SC3Jabalpur2Guwahati2Amritsar2Andhra Pradesh1Raipur1Rajasthan1Rajkot1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)10Addition to Income7Section 143(1)5Section 404Section 1544Deduction4Section 80P(2)(a)2Section 80P2Section 143(2)

M/S.JANATHA TRADING CORPORATION,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ACIT, ALUVA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 128/COCH/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos.303/Coch/2014 & 128/ Coch/2016 Assessment Year : 2008-09 & 2010-11 M/S. Janatha Trading Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Corporation, Market Road, Income-Tax, Circle-1, Aluva. Aluva. [Pan: Aabfj 8478K]

condone the delay and the appeal is taken up for adjudication. 3. The grounds raised are as follows: ”Janatha Trading Corporation, Aluva is a partnership firm files all income tax returns in time and also for the assessment year 2008-09. The firm maintains books of accounts in true and correct produced before the assessing authority with supportive evidences

JANATHA TRADING CORPORATION,ALUVA vs. THE DCIT, ALUVA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 303/COCH/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Aug 2018AY 2008-09

S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos.303/Coch/2014 & 128/ Coch/2016 Assessment Year : 2008-09 & 2010-11 M/S. Janatha Trading Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Corporation, Market Road, Income-Tax, Circle-1, Aluva. Aluva. [Pan: Aabfj 8478K]

2
Section 246A2
Undisclosed Income2
Bench:

condone the delay and the appeal is taken up for adjudication. 3. The grounds raised are as follows: ”Janatha Trading Corporation, Aluva is a partnership firm files all income tax returns in time and also for the assessment year 2008-09. The firm maintains books of accounts in true and correct produced before the assessing authority with supportive evidences

THE CHORODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD, LL139,CHORODE vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 122/COCH/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Nov 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Sri.V.S.Narayanan, CAFor Respondent: Dr.S.Pandian, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 246Section 246ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

246 in the Act by the Finance Act, 2022, the appellate authority for 143(1) order is also likely to be different as now such cases are largely adjudicated by the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) unlike earlier. 5.2.4 In the context of this issue, I would also like to place reliance upon two recent decisions of the Hon'ble Tribunals

THE CHORODE SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD LL139,CHORODE vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 123/COCH/2024[AY 2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Nov 2024

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Sri.V.S.Narayanan, CAFor Respondent: Dr.S.Pandian, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 246Section 246ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

246 in the Act by the Finance Act, 2022, the appellate authority for 143(1) order is also likely to be different as now such cases are largely adjudicated by the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) unlike earlier. 5.2.4 In the context of this issue, I would also like to place reliance upon two recent decisions of the Hon'ble Tribunals

DR. K.E. MOORTHY,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. DCIT, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 637/COCH/2008[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin18 Jul 2019AY 2000-01

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

Section 132Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

condone the delay of four days in filing the appeals and admit the appeals for adjudication. I.T.A. Nos.637 to 643/Coch/2008 and 246 to 248/Coch/2019 8. The assessee has raised the following common grounds of appeals: 1. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of AO in the levy of penalty 2. The AO erred in estimating the income

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

THE JTCIT(OSD), CALICUT vs. M/S. CHATHAMKULAM PROJECTS & DEVELOPERS P. LTD, PALAKKAD

In the result, both the appeal filed by Revenue as well as the Cross Objection

ITA 170/COCH/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

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

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153A

condone the delay of 17 days and admit the cross objection. The cross objection filed by the assessee is only supportive of the CIT(A) order. 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds: 1) The ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,30,48,402/- made on account of unexplained net worth of the assessee