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.

37 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 249clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai375Chennai189Kolkata183Ahmedabad160Delhi157Bangalore145Chandigarh126Hyderabad120Jaipur103Karnataka102Surat75Raipur74Pune64Indore54Lucknow42Visakhapatnam39Cochin37Amritsar29Agra28Panaji28Patna23Cuttack22Rajkot15Guwahati14Nagpur14Jodhpur13Ranchi13Calcutta8Allahabad8Jabalpur8Varanasi6Dehradun6Telangana3Andhra Pradesh1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Condonation of Delay21Section 10B20Limitation/Time-bar15Section 14414Penalty14Addition to Income13Section 271(1)(c)12Section 249(2)12Section 132

SRI.VARUGEHESE M. UTHUP,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE,, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 163/COCH/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

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

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 249(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

condonation of delay in filing the appeals was not granted. According to the CIT(A), as per the IT Act, for an appeal to be valid, the appeal has to be filed, as per section 249

SRI.VARUGEHESE M. UTHUP,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE,, KOCHI

Showing 1–20 of 37 · Page 1 of 2

12
Section 153A12
Section 27112
Natural Justice11

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 168/COCH/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

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

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 249(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

condonation of delay in filing the appeals was not granted. According to the CIT(A), as per the IT Act, for an appeal to be valid, the appeal has to be filed, as per section 249

SRI.VARUGEHESE M. UTHUP,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE,, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 169/COCH/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

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

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 249(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

condonation of delay in filing the appeals was not granted. According to the CIT(A), as per the IT Act, for an appeal to be valid, the appeal has to be filed, as per section 249

SRI.VARUGEHESE M. UTHUP,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE,, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 166/COCH/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2019AY 2015-16

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

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 249(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

condonation of delay in filing the appeals was not granted. According to the CIT(A), as per the IT Act, for an appeal to be valid, the appeal has to be filed, as per section 249

SRI.VARUGEHESE M. UTHUP,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE,, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 167/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

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

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 249(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

condonation of delay in filing the appeals was not granted. According to the CIT(A), as per the IT Act, for an appeal to be valid, the appeal has to be filed, as per section 249

SRI.VARUGEHESE M. UTHUP,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE,, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 170/COCH/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

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

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 249(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

condonation of delay in filing the appeals was not granted. According to the CIT(A), as per the IT Act, for an appeal to be valid, the appeal has to be filed, as per section 249

SRI.VARUGEHESE M. UTHUP,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE,, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 172/COCH/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2019AY 2015-16

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

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 249(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

condonation of delay in filing the appeals was not granted. According to the CIT(A), as per the IT Act, for an appeal to be valid, the appeal has to be filed, as per section 249

SRI VARGHESE M.UTHUP,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT,CEN-CIRCLE-2, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 161/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

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

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 249(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

condonation of delay in filing the appeals was not granted. According to the CIT(A), as per the IT Act, for an appeal to be valid, the appeal has to be filed, as per section 249

SRI.VARUGEHESE M. UTHUP,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE,, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 164/COCH/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

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

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 249(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

condonation of delay in filing the appeals was not granted. According to the CIT(A), as per the IT Act, for an appeal to be valid, the appeal has to be filed, as per section 249

SRI.VARUGEHESE M. UTHUP,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE,, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 165/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

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

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 249(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

condonation of delay in filing the appeals was not granted. According to the CIT(A), as per the IT Act, for an appeal to be valid, the appeal has to be filed, as per section 249

SRI.VARUGEHESE M. UTHUP,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE,, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 171/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

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

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 249(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

condonation of delay in filing the appeals was not granted. According to the CIT(A), as per the IT Act, for an appeal to be valid, the appeal has to be filed, as per section 249

SRI VARGHESE M.UTHUP,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT,CEN-CIRCLE-2, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 162/COCH/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

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

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 249(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

condonation of delay in filing the appeals was not granted. According to the CIT(A), as per the IT Act, for an appeal to be valid, the appeal has to be filed, as per section 249

CELESTIAL INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD,AMBALAMUGAL vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), ERNALUAM

In the result, appeal is "Dismissed"

ITA 160/COCH/2024[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhcelestial Infrastructure (P) Ltd. Dcit, Corporate Circle - 1(1) Aiswarya Towers Cr Building, Is Press Road Hoc Junction, Ambalamugal Vs. Kochi 682018 Ernakulam 682302 [Pan: Aaccc6737F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Thomas Thomas, CAFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 249Section 249(3)Section 250

condone the 3951 days delay in filing the appeal by holdings as under: - “7. DECISION: 7.1. At the outset, it is observed that there is delay in filing of appeal. As per clause (2) section 249

M/S.KERALA MEDICAL SERVICES CORPN LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, WD-1(4), TRIVANDRUM

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 109/COCH/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 May 2019AY 2012-13

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

Section 249(3)

condoned the delay in filing the appeals before him by observing as follows: 4.2. The admission of appeals filed with delay is governed by the provisions of section 249

M/S.KERALA MEDICAL SERVICES CORPN LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, WD-1(4), TRIVANDRUM

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 107/COCH/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 May 2019AY 2010-11

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

Section 249(3)

condoned the delay in filing the appeals before him by observing as follows: 4.2. The admission of appeals filed with delay is governed by the provisions of section 249

M/S.KERALA MEDICAL SERVICES CORPN LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, WD-1(4), TRIVANDRUM

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 108/COCH/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 May 2019AY 2011-12

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

Section 249(3)

condoned the delay in filing the appeals before him by observing as follows: 4.2. The admission of appeals filed with delay is governed by the provisions of section 249

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

delay is governed by the provisions of section 249{3) of the Act and the same reads as under: "The Commissioner(Appeals) may admit an appeal after the expiration of the said period if he is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period." 5.2 For this purpose, the CIT(A) relied

CLASSIC PHARMA,ALAPPUZHA vs. ITO, WARD 2, ALAPPUZHA

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

ITA 815/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear:2017-18 Classic Pharma 42/672B, Civil Station Ward Alappuzha 688 001 Vs. Kerala Nfac Delhi Pan No :Aakfc0215F Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri R. Krishnan, A.R. Respondent By : Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 30.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.04.2025

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 249Section 250

delay of 145 days in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A), which is not condoned by the ld. CIT(A) on the ground that the assessee has not discharged the onus of “sufficient cause” within the meaning of section 249

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

M/S.ABAD FISHERIES,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

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

ITA 120/COCH/2014[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 May 2019AY 1996-97

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

Section 10BSection 143Section 249Section 4Section 80H

section 249 was deleted by the Tribunal. The assessment order was served on the assessee on 18/03/1999 and the appeal before the CIT was filed on 16/04/1999. The CIT(A) dismissed this appeal on the ground that the taxes were not paid by the assessee, however, the assessee had filed a certificate from the Assessing Officer to the effect that