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.

60 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 27clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai903Delhi882Mumbai871Pune644Kolkata582Hyderabad416Bangalore414Ahmedabad323Jaipur262Nagpur176Chandigarh168Karnataka161Raipur122Surat115Visakhapatnam112Amritsar99Lucknow87Indore85Cuttack78Panaji69Cochin60Rajkot52Calcutta52Patna44SC33Jodhpur25Telangana21Guwahati20Allahabad17Varanasi17Agra16Dehradun13Jabalpur11Ranchi8Kerala5Rajasthan4Orissa4A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2Andhra Pradesh2Himachal Pradesh1Gauhati1DIPAK MISRA R.K. AGRAWAL PRAFULLA C. PANT1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1

Key Topics

Section 26357Section 143(3)37Section 12A33Section 80P30Section 1128Addition to Income24Section 13122Condonation of Delay19Section 250

PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE KUNNAMANAGALAM KOZHIKODE,KOZHIKODE vs. ITO,WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 763/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Richard Mathews, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

27......... 28. We are at a loss to fathom any logic or rationale, which could have impelled the High Court to condone the delay after holding the same to be unjustifiable. The concepts such as “liberal approach”, “justice oriented approach”, “substantial justice” cannot be employed to jettison the substantial law of limitation. Especially, in cases where the court concludes that

PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE KUNNAMANGALAM,KOZHIKODE vs. ITO, WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 764/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin

Showing 1–20 of 60 · Page 1 of 3

18
Section 6818
Deduction16
Exemption11
07 Nov 2025
AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Richard Mathews, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

27......... 28. We are at a loss to fathom any logic or rationale, which could have impelled the High Court to condone the delay after holding the same to be unjustifiable. The concepts such as “liberal approach”, “justice oriented approach”, “substantial justice” cannot be employed to jettison the substantial law of limitation. Especially, in cases where the court concludes that

PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE KUNNAMANGALAM KOZHIKODE,KOZHIKODE vs. ITO ,WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 762/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Richard Mathews, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

27......... 28. We are at a loss to fathom any logic or rationale, which could have impelled the High Court to condone the delay after holding the same to be unjustifiable. The concepts such as “liberal approach”, “justice oriented approach”, “substantial justice” cannot be employed to jettison the substantial law of limitation. Especially, in cases where the court concludes that

PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE KUNNAMANGALAM,KOZHIKODE vs. ITO, WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 761/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Richard Mathews, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

27......... 28. We are at a loss to fathom any logic or rationale, which could have impelled the High Court to condone the delay after holding the same to be unjustifiable. The concepts such as “liberal approach”, “justice oriented approach”, “substantial justice” cannot be employed to jettison the substantial law of limitation. Especially, in cases where the court concludes that

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

27,708/-. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee went in appeal before the CIT(A) raising the ground with regard to charging of interest u/s. 220(2) and 234D of the I.T. Act. However, there was a delay of 50 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The assessee filed appeal against the order under section

THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKKODE, KOZHIKKODE vs. M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES, THRISSUR

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

ITA 374/COCH/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

Section 131Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

27 ITD 1 • Me & Mummy Hospital v. Asst. CIT (20J4) 224 Taxman 65 (Mag.)/45 Taxmann.com 248 • Omnia Appliances Private Limited (ITA No.3775/Del/2015). 3.11 It was submitted that the Assessing Officer erred in relying on Bharathi Cement Corporation (P) Ltd vs. CIT reported in (2012) 253 CTR 98 (Andhra Pradesh) in concluding that rejection of books of accounts

M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES,TRICHUR vs. THE DCIT, CALICUT

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

ITA 498/COCH/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

Section 131Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

27 ITD 1 • Me & Mummy Hospital v. Asst. CIT (20J4) 224 Taxman 65 (Mag.)/45 Taxmann.com 248 • Omnia Appliances Private Limited (ITA No.3775/Del/2015). 3.11 It was submitted that the Assessing Officer erred in relying on Bharathi Cement Corporation (P) Ltd vs. CIT reported in (2012) 253 CTR 98 (Andhra Pradesh) in concluding that rejection of books of accounts

THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKKODE, KOZHIKKODE vs. M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES, THRISSUR

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

ITA 375/COCH/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

Section 131Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

27 ITD 1 • Me & Mummy Hospital v. Asst. CIT (20J4) 224 Taxman 65 (Mag.)/45 Taxmann.com 248 • Omnia Appliances Private Limited (ITA No.3775/Del/2015). 3.11 It was submitted that the Assessing Officer erred in relying on Bharathi Cement Corporation (P) Ltd vs. CIT reported in (2012) 253 CTR 98 (Andhra Pradesh) in concluding that rejection of books of accounts

M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES,TRICHUR vs. THE DCIT(, TRIVANDRUM

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

ITA 495/COCH/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

Section 131Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

27 ITD 1 • Me & Mummy Hospital v. Asst. CIT (20J4) 224 Taxman 65 (Mag.)/45 Taxmann.com 248 • Omnia Appliances Private Limited (ITA No.3775/Del/2015). 3.11 It was submitted that the Assessing Officer erred in relying on Bharathi Cement Corporation (P) Ltd vs. CIT reported in (2012) 253 CTR 98 (Andhra Pradesh) in concluding that rejection of books of accounts

M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES,TRICHUR vs. THE DCIT, CALICUT

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

ITA 497/COCH/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

Section 131Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

27 ITD 1 • Me & Mummy Hospital v. Asst. CIT (20J4) 224 Taxman 65 (Mag.)/45 Taxmann.com 248 • Omnia Appliances Private Limited (ITA No.3775/Del/2015). 3.11 It was submitted that the Assessing Officer erred in relying on Bharathi Cement Corporation (P) Ltd vs. CIT reported in (2012) 253 CTR 98 (Andhra Pradesh) in concluding that rejection of books of accounts

M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES,TRICHUR vs. THE DCIT, CALICUT

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

ITA 499/COCH/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

Section 131Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

27 ITD 1 • Me & Mummy Hospital v. Asst. CIT (20J4) 224 Taxman 65 (Mag.)/45 Taxmann.com 248 • Omnia Appliances Private Limited (ITA No.3775/Del/2015). 3.11 It was submitted that the Assessing Officer erred in relying on Bharathi Cement Corporation (P) Ltd vs. CIT reported in (2012) 253 CTR 98 (Andhra Pradesh) in concluding that rejection of books of accounts

THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKKODE, KOZHIKKODE vs. M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES, THRISSUR

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

ITA 379/COCH/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

Section 131Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

27 ITD 1 • Me & Mummy Hospital v. Asst. CIT (20J4) 224 Taxman 65 (Mag.)/45 Taxmann.com 248 • Omnia Appliances Private Limited (ITA No.3775/Del/2015). 3.11 It was submitted that the Assessing Officer erred in relying on Bharathi Cement Corporation (P) Ltd vs. CIT reported in (2012) 253 CTR 98 (Andhra Pradesh) in concluding that rejection of books of accounts

THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKKODE, KOZHIKKODE vs. M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES, THRISSUR

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

ITA 376/COCH/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

Section 131Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

27 ITD 1 • Me & Mummy Hospital v. Asst. CIT (20J4) 224 Taxman 65 (Mag.)/45 Taxmann.com 248 • Omnia Appliances Private Limited (ITA No.3775/Del/2015). 3.11 It was submitted that the Assessing Officer erred in relying on Bharathi Cement Corporation (P) Ltd vs. CIT reported in (2012) 253 CTR 98 (Andhra Pradesh) in concluding that rejection of books of accounts

THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKKODE, KOZHIKKODE vs. M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES, THRISSUR

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

ITA 377/COCH/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

Section 131Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

27 ITD 1 • Me & Mummy Hospital v. Asst. CIT (20J4) 224 Taxman 65 (Mag.)/45 Taxmann.com 248 • Omnia Appliances Private Limited (ITA No.3775/Del/2015). 3.11 It was submitted that the Assessing Officer erred in relying on Bharathi Cement Corporation (P) Ltd vs. CIT reported in (2012) 253 CTR 98 (Andhra Pradesh) in concluding that rejection of books of accounts

THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKKODE, KOZHIKKODE vs. M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES, THRISSUR

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

ITA 378/COCH/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

Section 131Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

27 ITD 1 • Me & Mummy Hospital v. Asst. CIT (20J4) 224 Taxman 65 (Mag.)/45 Taxmann.com 248 • Omnia Appliances Private Limited (ITA No.3775/Del/2015). 3.11 It was submitted that the Assessing Officer erred in relying on Bharathi Cement Corporation (P) Ltd vs. CIT reported in (2012) 253 CTR 98 (Andhra Pradesh) in concluding that rejection of books of accounts

M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES,TRICHUR vs. THE DCIT, CALICUT

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

ITA 496/COCH/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

Section 131Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

27 ITD 1 • Me & Mummy Hospital v. Asst. CIT (20J4) 224 Taxman 65 (Mag.)/45 Taxmann.com 248 • Omnia Appliances Private Limited (ITA No.3775/Del/2015). 3.11 It was submitted that the Assessing Officer erred in relying on Bharathi Cement Corporation (P) Ltd vs. CIT reported in (2012) 253 CTR 98 (Andhra Pradesh) in concluding that rejection of books of accounts

MULIYAR AGRICULTURIST WELFARE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,KASARGOD vs. THE ITO WARD 1 & TPS, KASARGOD

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

ITA 455/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2017-18 Muliyar Agriculturist Welfare .......... Appellant Co-Operative Society Ltd. 374, Bovikanam Post, Muliyar, Kasaragod [Pan: Aafam1658Q] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward - 1 & Tps, Kasaragod

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

27 days in filing the appeal. The appellant filed a petition seeking condonation of delay, which reads as under: - “Sub: Condonation of delay in submission of appeal. Our income tax assessment for the A.Y 2017-18 was completed by the Assessment Unit of the Income tax department u/s 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 vide order

THE MULIYAR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,KASARGOD vs. THE ITO, KASARGOD

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

ITA 86/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K.And Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Muliar Service Co-Operative The Income Tax Officer Bank Ltd. Ward - 1 & Tps Vs. Kanathur P.O., Kasargod 671542 Kasargod

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 80Section 80P

27-10-2021 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center, Delhi dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay is totally illegal and unjustified. 2. The CIT (Appeals) erred in rejecting the appeal on the ground of delay without considering the matter on merits. The CIT (Appeals) went wrong in not considering, in the right

K.L ABDUL SATHAR,SOUTH BAZAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIOER OF INCOME TAX, KANNUR

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

ITA 614/COCH/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Apr 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear:2009-10 K.L. Abdul Sathar South Bazar Kannur 670002 Vs. Dcit Kannur Pan No : Aaffk4769B Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri R. Krishnan, A.R. Respondent By : Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 19.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.04.2025 O R D E R Perkeshav Dubey: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 29.01.2024 Vide Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1060194335(1) For The Ay 2009-10 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250

delay is condoned, and appeal is admitted for adjudication. 6. Now the brief facts of the case are that the assessee is dealing in purchase and sale of timber, tiles and other allied goods. For the assessment year 2009-10, the assessee firm filed its return of income on 24.3.2010 declaring total income of Rs.11,79,760/-. The return

M/S.KOVILAKAM HOTEL P LTD,THRISSUR vs. THE ACIT,, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 715/COCH/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin18 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K.

Section 143(2)Section 37(1)

condone the delay of 27 days in filing the appeal and proceed to dispose off the appeal on merits. 3. The solitary issue that is raised in this appeal is whether the CIT(A) is justified in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in treating the sum of Rs.60,25,240/- as capital expenditure. 4. Briefly stated, the facts