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.

20 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 264clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi131Karnataka112Mumbai91Chennai79Bangalore71Kolkata64Ahmedabad44Hyderabad41Calcutta37Jaipur25Pune24Cochin20Indore13Chandigarh11Rajkot11Amritsar10Panaji10Patna7Cuttack6Telangana6Lucknow5SC4Nagpur4Visakhapatnam3Jodhpur3Dehradun2Surat2Guwahati2Orissa2Jabalpur2Agra1Rajasthan1Ranchi1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 15322Section 271(1)(c)16Addition to Income13Section 25012Section 275(1)(c)12Section 14411Section 26411Section 25411Section 14810

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)

condoning delay where no sufficient cause is made out by imposing conditions then that would amount to violation of statutory principles and showing utter disregard to legislature.” (v) In the case of R. Ramakrishnan Vs. CBDT (2020) (422 ITR 257), wherein the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka held as under: “14. Undisputedly, the petitioner has not questioned the validity

Limitation/Time-bar10
Penalty7
Revision u/s 2635

M/S SANTHIMADOM AYURNIKETHAN HEALTH RESORT & RESEARCH INSTITUTE TRUST,KOCHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 919/COCH/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 153ASection 153CSection 234A

condoning the delay, admit the appeal for being decided on merits. 3. It was, at the outset, submitted by Shri Joseph, the learned counsel for the assessee, that only the grounds of appeal in relation to levy of interest u/ss. 234A and 234B of the Act are being pressed. And toward which he would take us through the appeal memo

M/S SANTHIMADOM AYURNIKETHAN HEALTH RESORT & RESEARCH INSTITUTE TRUST,ERNAKULAM vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 916/COCH/2022[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 May 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 153ASection 153CSection 234A

condoning the delay, admit the appeal for being decided on merits. 3. It was, at the outset, submitted by Shri Joseph, the learned counsel for the assessee, that only the grounds of appeal in relation to levy of interest u/ss. 234A and 234B of the Act are being pressed. And toward which he would take us through the appeal memo

M/S SANTHIMADOM AYURNIKETHAN HEALTH RESORT & RESEARCH INSTITUTE TRUST,KOCHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 917/COCH/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 May 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 153ASection 153CSection 234A

condoning the delay, admit the appeal for being decided on merits. 3. It was, at the outset, submitted by Shri Joseph, the learned counsel for the assessee, that only the grounds of appeal in relation to levy of interest u/ss. 234A and 234B of the Act are being pressed. And toward which he would take us through the appeal memo

M/S SANTHIMADOM AYURNIKETHAN HEALTH RESORT & RESEARCH INSTITUTE TRUST,KOCHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 918/COCH/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 May 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 153ASection 153CSection 234A

condoning the delay, admit the appeal for being decided on merits. 3. It was, at the outset, submitted by Shri Joseph, the learned counsel for the assessee, that only the grounds of appeal in relation to levy of interest u/ss. 234A and 234B of the Act are being pressed. And toward which he would take us through the appeal memo

THE AD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALAPPUZHA vs. N S S KARAYOGAM, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed, as indicated above

ITA 505/COCH/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Mar 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Sri.T.M.Sreedharan, Advocate
Section 143Section 148Section 153Section 254

condone the delay of 32 days in filing this appeal and proceed to dispose off the appeal on merits. ITA No.505/Coch/2018. 2 M/s.NSS Karayogam Br. No.1365. 3. The solitary issue that is raised by the Revenue is whether the assessment completed vide order dated 28.03.2014 pursuant to ITAT’s order dated 21.10.2011 was barred by limitation

CHRISTUDANAM YASSAYA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

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

ITA 840/COCH/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2011-12 Christudanam Yassaya .......... Appellant Bathel Kp 17A Maruthoor, Vattapara P.O. Thiruvananthapuram 695028 [Pan: Acmpy4412C] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1) .......... Respondent Aayakar Bhavan, Kowdiar Thiruvananthapuram 695003

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 142Section 144Section 148Section 264Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

264 on 29.11.2019 at a total income of Rs. 38,32,110/-. 3. The appellant, in response to the show cause notice u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, could not file original return of income as he was under treatment for psychological issues. However, the AO rejected the above explanation and proceeded with levy of penalty

M/S SANTHIMADOM HERBAL CITY TRUST,ERNAKULAM vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 921/COCH/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamuna Devi, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 153C

condonation of delay, admit the instant appeals. Hearing was accordingly proceeded with. ITA Nos.920-921/Coch/2022 (AYs. 2008-09 & 2009-10) Santhimadom Herbal City Trust v. Asst. CIT 3. The assessee is a private trust formed on 01.01.2007 (02/11/2004, as per the impugned order) with the object of construction of a herbal city, apartments/villas, etc. for the promotion of herbal treatment, herbal

M/S SANTHIMADOM HERBAL CITY TRUST,ERNAKULAM vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 920/COCH/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Nov 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamuna Devi, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 153C

condonation of delay, admit the instant appeals. Hearing was accordingly proceeded with. ITA Nos.920-921/Coch/2022 (AYs. 2008-09 & 2009-10) Santhimadom Herbal City Trust v. Asst. CIT 3. The assessee is a private trust formed on 01.01.2007 (02/11/2004, as per the impugned order) with the object of construction of a herbal city, apartments/villas, etc. for the promotion of herbal treatment, herbal

SRI.THOMAS EAPEN,ALAPPUZHA vs. THE ITO, WD-5, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 451/COCH/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Nov 2019AY 2015-16

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

Section 115BSection 68

condone the delay of 231 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 5. The facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income for A.Y. 2015- 16 on 16/03/2017 declaring total income of Rs.3,37,160/-. The assessment u/s. I.T.A. No. 451/Coch/2019 143(3) of the I.T. Act was completed o 21/12/2017

CHRISTUDANAM YASSAYA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, all four appeals are allowed

ITA 147/COCH/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 144Section 148Section 264Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 275(1)(c)

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication on merits. 3. Brief Facts of the Case are that for the (A.Y. 2012–13), notice under Section 148 was issued to the assessee and assessment was completed under Section 144 on 30.12.2018, due to non-submission of supporting documents. The assessee filed a revision petition under Section 264

CHRISTUDANAM YASSAYA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, all four appeals are allowed

ITA 146/COCH/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 144Section 148Section 264Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 275(1)(c)

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication on merits. 3. Brief Facts of the Case are that for the (A.Y. 2012–13), notice under Section 148 was issued to the assessee and assessment was completed under Section 144 on 30.12.2018, due to non-submission of supporting documents. The assessee filed a revision petition under Section 264

CHRISTUDANAM YASSAYA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, all four appeals are allowed

ITA 148/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 144Section 148Section 264Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 275(1)(c)

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication on merits. 3. Brief Facts of the Case are that for the (A.Y. 2012–13), notice under Section 148 was issued to the assessee and assessment was completed under Section 144 on 30.12.2018, due to non-submission of supporting documents. The assessee filed a revision petition under Section 264

CHRISTUDANAM YASSAYA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, all four appeals are allowed

ITA 149/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 144Section 148Section 264Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 275(1)(c)

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication on merits. 3. Brief Facts of the Case are that for the (A.Y. 2012–13), notice under Section 148 was issued to the assessee and assessment was completed under Section 144 on 30.12.2018, due to non-submission of supporting documents. The assessee filed a revision petition under Section 264

M/S.MARYMATHA SCHOOL TRUST,COCHIN vs. THE ITO(EXEMPTION), COCHIN

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

ITA 285/COCH/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. No.285/Coch/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Mary Matha School Trust, Vs. The Income Tax Officer Thrikkakara P.O. (Exemption), Kochi. Kochi-682 021. [Pan:Aabtm 0241L]

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 272A(2)(e)Section 272A(3)Section 272A(4)

condone the delay of 24 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal. 3. The assessee has raised the following ground of appeal: 1. The learned Commissioner ought to have convinced with the fact that depreciation is an allowable application of income u/s. 11, as the amendment is prospective in nature and effective from assessment year

SRI.T.ABDUL MAJEED PROPRIETOR,COCHIN vs. THE DCIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed, as indicated above

ITA 74/COCH/2017[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Dec 2018AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. C.B.M.Warrier, CAFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 143Section 153Section 250Section 254Section 263Section 264

condone the delay and admit and adjudicate the additional Grounds of Appeal.” 7. It was submitted by the learned Counsel that the additional ground now raised was omitted to be raised in the original memorandum of appeal. It was submitted that the issue of limitation was raised before the A.O. as well as the CIT(A). As regards the additional

SRI.T.ABDUL MAJEED PROPRIETOR,COCHIN vs. THE DCIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed, as indicated above

ITA 71/COCH/2017[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Dec 2018AY 1995-96

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. C.B.M.Warrier, CAFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 143Section 153Section 250Section 254Section 263Section 264

condone the delay and admit and adjudicate the additional Grounds of Appeal.” 7. It was submitted by the learned Counsel that the additional ground now raised was omitted to be raised in the original memorandum of appeal. It was submitted that the issue of limitation was raised before the A.O. as well as the CIT(A). As regards the additional

SRI.T.ABDUL MAJEED PROPRIETOR,COCHIN vs. THE DCIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed, as indicated above

ITA 70/COCH/2017[1994-95]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Dec 2018AY 1994-95

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. C.B.M.Warrier, CAFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 143Section 153Section 250Section 254Section 263Section 264

condone the delay and admit and adjudicate the additional Grounds of Appeal.” 7. It was submitted by the learned Counsel that the additional ground now raised was omitted to be raised in the original memorandum of appeal. It was submitted that the issue of limitation was raised before the A.O. as well as the CIT(A). As regards the additional

SRI.T.ABDUL MAJEED PROPRIETOR,COCHIN vs. THE DCIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed, as indicated above

ITA 72/COCH/2017[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Dec 2018AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. C.B.M.Warrier, CAFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 143Section 153Section 250Section 254Section 263Section 264

condone the delay and admit and adjudicate the additional Grounds of Appeal.” 7. It was submitted by the learned Counsel that the additional ground now raised was omitted to be raised in the original memorandum of appeal. It was submitted that the issue of limitation was raised before the A.O. as well as the CIT(A). As regards the additional

SRI.T.ABDUL MAJEED PROPRIETOR,COCHIN vs. THE DCIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed, as indicated above

ITA 73/COCH/2017[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Dec 2018AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. C.B.M.Warrier, CAFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 143Section 153Section 250Section 254Section 263Section 264

condone the delay and admit and adjudicate the additional Grounds of Appeal.” 7. It was submitted by the learned Counsel that the additional ground now raised was omitted to be raised in the original memorandum of appeal. It was submitted that the issue of limitation was raised before the A.O. as well as the CIT(A). As regards the additional