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.

26 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 272A(2)(k)clear

Sorted by relevance

Pune116Chennai69Delhi43Cochin26Karnataka21Mumbai21Bangalore20Cuttack19Panaji10Allahabad10Lucknow8Jaipur7Ahmedabad7Chandigarh7Hyderabad6Kolkata5Rajkot5Visakhapatnam3Surat2Nagpur1Jodhpur1

Key Topics

Section 133(6)34Section 20033Section 206C33Section 19233Section 272A(2)(c)19Limitation/Time-bar16Condonation of Delay12Section 234E11TDS

M/S.MUVATTUPUZHA SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD, MUVATTUPUZHA,ERNAKULAM vs. THE JT DIT ( I & CI), KOCHI

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 471/COCH/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Smt.S.SwathyFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 133Section 133(6)Section 272Section 272A(2)(c)Section 275(1)

K, JM : This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A) dated 26.02.2019. The relevant assessment year are 2011-2012 to 2013-2014. The order of the CIT(A) arises out of the order passed u/s 272A(2)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. There is a delay

Showing 1–20 of 26 · Page 1 of 2

11
Penalty6
Section 271B5
Section 44A4

M/S.ENGANDIYUR FARMER'S SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,THRISSUR vs. ADCIT(INTELLIGENCE), KOCHI

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 332/COCH/2017[2010-11,2011-12 &12-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Jan 2018

Bench: Shri George George Kasst.Years 2011-2012, 2012-2013 & 2013-2014

For Appellant: Ms. Mekhala M.BennyFor Respondent: Sri. A.Dhanaraj, Sr.DR
Section 133Section 133(6)Section 272Section 272A(2)Section 272A(2)(c)Section 274Section 274(1)Section 275(1)(c)

condone the delay of 41 days and proceed to dispose of the same on merits. 3. The brief facts of the case are as follow: 3.1 The assessee is a Co-operative Society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. The assessee was served with notice u/s 133(6) of the Income-tax Act. The assessee was directed

M/S.THE PUDUNAGARAM SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,PALAKKAD vs. THE JT DIT ( I & CI), KOCHI

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 461/COCH/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 133(6)Section 272A(2)Section 272A(2)(c)Section 273

K, JM : This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A) dated 26.02.2019. The relevant assessment year is 2011-2012. The order of the CIT(A) arises out of the order passed u/s 272A(2)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. There is a delay of 70 days

M/S.PUDUKKAD SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,THRISSUR vs. THE JT DIRECTOR OF IT ( I&C1), KOCHI

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 259/COCH/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

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

Section 133(6)Section 272A(2)(c)

K, JM : These appeals at the instance of the assessee are directed against separate order of the CIT(A). The orders of the CIT(A) arise out of the order passed u/s 272A(2)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. The assessees in the case of M/s.Mekkadampu Service Co-operative Bank Limited (SA No.37/Coch/2019 arising

MANAKKAD SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD, THODUPUZHA,IDUKKI DIST vs. THE JT DIRECTOR OF IT (I &C1), KOCHI

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 235/COCH/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

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

Section 133(6)Section 272A(2)(c)

K, JM : These appeals at the instance of the assessee are directed against separate order of the CIT(A). The orders of the CIT(A) arise out of the order passed u/s 272A(2)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. The assessees in the case of M/s.Mekkadampu Service Co-operative Bank Limited (SA No.37/Coch/2019 arising

M/S.MEKKADAMPU SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,ERNAKULAM DIST vs. THE JT DIT ( I & CI), KOCHI

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 418/COCH/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

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

Section 133(6)Section 272A(2)(c)

K, JM : These appeals at the instance of the assessee are directed against separate order of the CIT(A). The orders of the CIT(A) arise out of the order passed u/s 272A(2)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. The assessees in the case of M/s.Mekkadampu Service Co-operative Bank Limited (SA No.37/Coch/2019 arising

M/S.NEENDOOR SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,KOTTYAM vs. THE ADDIT( I & CI), KOCHI

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 405/COCH/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

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

Section 133(6)Section 272A(2)(c)

K, JM : These appeals at the instance of the assessee are directed against separate order of the CIT(A). The orders of the CIT(A) arise out of the order passed u/s 272A(2)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. The assessees in the case of M/s.Mekkadampu Service Co-operative Bank Limited (SA No.37/Coch/2019 arising

UZHAVA SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,ALAPPUZHA vs. THE ITO, WD-4, ALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 392/COCH/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

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

Section 133(6)Section 272A(2)(c)

K, JM : These appeals at the instance of the assessee are directed against separate order of the CIT(A). The orders of the CIT(A) arise out of the order passed u/s 272A(2)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. The assessees in the case of M/s.Mekkadampu Service Co-operative Bank Limited (SA No.37/Coch/2019 arising

M/S.POLPULLY SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,PALAKKAD vs. THE ITO,WD-2, PALAKKAD

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 226/COCH/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

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

Section 133(6)Section 272A(2)(c)

K, JM : These appeals at the instance of the assessee are directed against separate order of the CIT(A). The orders of the CIT(A) arise out of the order passed u/s 272A(2)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. The assessees in the case of M/s.Mekkadampu Service Co-operative Bank Limited (SA No.37/Coch/2019 arising

PALLICKAL NADUVEILEMURI ERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,KAYAMKULAM vs. THE ADDL DIRECTOR OF (INTELLIGENCE), KOCHI

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 262/COCH/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

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

Section 133(6)Section 272A(2)(c)

K, JM : These appeals at the instance of the assessee are directed against separate order of the CIT(A). The orders of the CIT(A) arise out of the order passed u/s 272A(2)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. The assessees in the case of M/s.Mekkadampu Service Co-operative Bank Limited (SA No.37/Coch/2019 arising

M/S.PALLIPURAM VILLAGE SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,ALAPPUZHA DIST vs. THE JT. DIRECTOR OF IT (I&1C), KOCHI

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 261/COCH/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

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

Section 133(6)Section 272A(2)(c)

K, JM : These appeals at the instance of the assessee are directed against separate order of the CIT(A). The orders of the CIT(A) arise out of the order passed u/s 272A(2)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. The assessees in the case of M/s.Mekkadampu Service Co-operative Bank Limited (SA No.37/Coch/2019 arising

M/S.THYCATTUSSERRY SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,ALAPPUZHA vs. THE JT DIT ( I & C1), KOCHI

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 260/COCH/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

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

Section 133(6)Section 272A(2)(c)

K, JM : These appeals at the instance of the assessee are directed against separate order of the CIT(A). The orders of the CIT(A) arise out of the order passed u/s 272A(2)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. The assessees in the case of M/s.Mekkadampu Service Co-operative Bank Limited (SA No.37/Coch/2019 arising

M/S.ALLEPPEY NORTH SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,ALAPPUZHA vs. THE JT DIT ( I & CI), KOCHI

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 458/COCH/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Smt.Swathy SFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 133Section 133(6)Section 272A(2)(c)Section 275(1)

K, JM : This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A) dated 26.02.2019. The relevant assessment year is 2011-2012. The order of the CIT(A) arises out of the order passed u/s 272A(2)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. There is a delay of 66 days

M/S.JEENA HOTEL & UDAYA BAR,ALAPPUZHA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 265/COCH/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Aug 2019AY 2008-09

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

Section 271BSection 44A

condone the delay of 71 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) erred in confirming the penalty of Rs.1 lakh levied u/s. 271B of the Income Tax Act. I.T.A. No.265/Coch/2018 2. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals

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 2015-16. 2

COMMISSIONER FOR GOVT EXAMINATIONS ,POOJAPPURA vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(2), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 991/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: ----- None -----For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 192Section 200Section 206CSection 234E

condoned, no serious objection to which was raised by Smt. Devi, the ld. Sr. DR. 4. None appeared for the appellant when the appeals were called out for hearing, and neither is there any adjournment motion despite service of notice of hearing. Hearing in the matter was accordingly proceeded ex parte qua the assessee. 5. We have heard the party

COMMISSIONER FOR GOVT EXAMINATIONS ,POOJAPPURA vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(2), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 987/COCH/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: ----- None -----For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 192Section 200Section 206CSection 234E

condoned, no serious objection to which was raised by Smt. Devi, the ld. Sr. DR. 4. None appeared for the appellant when the appeals were called out for hearing, and neither is there any adjournment motion despite service of notice of hearing. Hearing in the matter was accordingly proceeded ex parte qua the assessee. 5. We have heard the party

COMMISSIONER FOR GOVT EXAMINATIONS ,POOJAPPURA vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(2), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 990/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: ----- None -----For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 192Section 200Section 206CSection 234E

condoned, no serious objection to which was raised by Smt. Devi, the ld. Sr. DR. 4. None appeared for the appellant when the appeals were called out for hearing, and neither is there any adjournment motion despite service of notice of hearing. Hearing in the matter was accordingly proceeded ex parte qua the assessee. 5. We have heard the party

COMMISSIONER FOR GOVT EXAMINATIONS ,POOJAPPURA vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(2), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 986/COCH/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: ----- None -----For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 192Section 200Section 206CSection 234E

condoned, no serious objection to which was raised by Smt. Devi, the ld. Sr. DR. 4. None appeared for the appellant when the appeals were called out for hearing, and neither is there any adjournment motion despite service of notice of hearing. Hearing in the matter was accordingly proceeded ex parte qua the assessee. 5. We have heard the party

COMMISSIONER FOR GOVT EXAMINATIONS ,POOJAPPURA vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(2), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 989/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: ----- None -----For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 192Section 200Section 206CSection 234E

condoned, no serious objection to which was raised by Smt. Devi, the ld. Sr. DR. 4. None appeared for the appellant when the appeals were called out for hearing, and neither is there any adjournment motion despite service of notice of hearing. Hearing in the matter was accordingly proceeded ex parte qua the assessee. 5. We have heard the party