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 260Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi337Calcutta206Mumbai116Karnataka64Amritsar36Kolkata35Chennai27Telangana25Hyderabad19Ahmedabad16Chandigarh13Lucknow12Andhra Pradesh10Bangalore9SC9Indore7Cochin7Agra6Nagpur6Surat5Jaipur4Kerala4Rajasthan4Himachal Pradesh2Orissa2Dehradun2Pune2Punjab & Haryana2Raipur2Jodhpur1Varanasi1Gauhati1Cuttack1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 80P9Section 10A7Condonation of Delay6Section 2504Section 143(3)4Deduction4Section 8O3Section 12A3Section 263

M/S THE KASARAGOD TODDY TAPPERS AND SHOP WORKERS CO-OP SOCIETY LTD,KASARGOD vs. ITO WARD 1, KASARGOD

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are dismissed as not maintainable

ITA 909/COCH/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Aby T.Varkey

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 260A(2)(a)Section 5

260A(2)(a) can be condoned by entertaining an application u/s.5 of Limitation Act, 1963 - Held - No. 4. CIT vs. Maharashtra State Government Employee Confederation Appeal No. CC3159-3160 of 2009, 23.03.2009 (SC) - When the High Court has refused to condone delay of 562 days in filing appeal, we do not see any reason to interfere therewith, more so when

3
Section 1472
Addition to Income2
Limitation/Time-bar2

M/S THE KASARAGOD TODDY TAPPERS AND SHOP WORKERS CO-OP SOCIETY LTD,KASARGOD vs. ITO WARD -1, KASARGOD

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are dismissed as not maintainable

ITA 908/COCH/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Aby T.Varkey

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 260A(2)(a)Section 5

260A(2)(a) can be condoned by entertaining an application u/s.5 of Limitation Act, 1963 - Held - No. 4. CIT vs. Maharashtra State Government Employee Confederation Appeal No. CC3159-3160 of 2009, 23.03.2009 (SC) - When the High Court has refused to condone delay of 562 days in filing appeal, we do not see any reason to interfere therewith, more so when

SAVE A FAMILY PLAN (INDIA),,KANJOOR vs. DCIT(EXEMPTION), KOCHI

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

ITA 138/COCH/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Save A Family Plan (India) Dy. Cit, Exemption Aiswaryagram, Parappuram San Juan Towers, 2Nd Floor Vs. Kanjoor - 683575 Old Railway Station Road [Pan:Aabts9439E] Kochi 682018 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Abraham J. Markose, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 260ASection 263

260A of the Act. The Hon'ble Kerala High Court set aside the order passed by this Tribunal in ITA No. 138/Coch/2020 dated 03.07.2023 with the following directions: - “i. The appellant shall file the additional affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay occasioned in filing the appeal before the Tribunal within two weeks from today. ii. On receipt

THE KUNDARA PANCHAYATH SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD,KOLLAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4, KOLLAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 803/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri G.Surendranath Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 250Section 80PSection 8O

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 6. The assesse is a credit co-operative society registered under Kerala Co-operative Societies Act 1969. For the AY 2012-13 the assesse filed its return of income on 9.11.2019. As per the return the taxable income was Nil after claiming deduction

THE KUNDARA PANCHAYATH SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD,KOLLAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4, KOLLAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 802/COCH/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri G.Surendranath Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 250Section 80PSection 8O

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 6. The assesse is a credit co-operative society registered under Kerala Co-operative Societies Act 1969. For the AY 2012-13 the assesse filed its return of income on 9.11.2019. As per the return the taxable income was Nil after claiming deduction

THE KUNDARA PANCHAYATH SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD,KOLLAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, KOLLAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 805/COCH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri G.Surendranath Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 250Section 80PSection 8O

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 6. The assesse is a credit co-operative society registered under Kerala Co-operative Societies Act 1969. For the AY 2012-13 the assesse filed its return of income on 9.11.2019. As per the return the taxable income was Nil after claiming deduction

NAICO INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,KERALA vs. CORPORATE CIR 2(1), KOCHI

In the result, the present appeal preferred by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 554/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 Sept 2025AY 2017-18
For Respondent: Shri Vivek Sathyan, CA
Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

condoned but the appellant has grossly failed to do so. Moreover, the appellant has not filed any further details to justify correctness of its claim of deduction under Section 10AA, it has merely relied on belated filed Form 56F. Therefore, the appellant is not found to be eligible for deduction for the year under consideration. Accordingly, the appeal