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.

12 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 274clear

Sorted by relevance

Kolkata159Mumbai156Delhi117Karnataka101Chennai97Bangalore78Jaipur65Surat62Ahmedabad58Hyderabad39Pune36Indore25Visakhapatnam22Lucknow16Rajkot12Cochin12Ranchi11Cuttack11Amritsar11Agra10Calcutta10Raipur10Chandigarh8Guwahati5Patna4Jabalpur4Nagpur4Varanasi3Jodhpur2Dehradun2Telangana2Andhra Pradesh1Rajasthan1SC1

Key Topics

Section 27415Section 271(1)(c)12Section 275(1)(c)12Penalty12Section 1449Limitation/Time-bar9Section 1486Section 44A6Condonation of Delay

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

6
Section 2644
Section 271C4
Revision u/s 2634

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

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

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

SYEDALI EBRAHIM,NEYYATTINKARA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, appeals filed by the appellant stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 761/COCH/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

For Appellant: Smt. Divya Ravindran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 274Section 44A

274 r.w.s. 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on noticing that the appellant had failed to submit the prescribed audit report as envisaged under provisions of section 44AB of the Act. In respect of show cause notice the appellant could not file any explanation. In the circumstances the AO had proceeded with levy of penalty

SYEDALI EBRAHIM,NEYYATTINKARA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, appeals filed by the appellant stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 762/COCH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

For Appellant: Smt. Divya Ravindran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 274Section 44A

274 r.w.s. 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on noticing that the appellant had failed to submit the prescribed audit report as envisaged under provisions of section 44AB of the Act. In respect of show cause notice the appellant could not file any explanation. In the circumstances the AO had proceeded with levy of penalty

SYEDALI EBRAHIM,NEYYATTINKARA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, appeals filed by the appellant stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 763/COCH/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

For Appellant: Smt. Divya Ravindran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 274Section 44A

274 r.w.s. 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on noticing that the appellant had failed to submit the prescribed audit report as envisaged under provisions of section 44AB of the Act. In respect of show cause notice the appellant could not file any explanation. In the circumstances the AO had proceeded with levy of penalty

SYEDALI EBRAHIM,NEYYATTINKARA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, appeals filed by the appellant stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 759/COCH/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

For Appellant: Smt. Divya Ravindran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 274Section 44A

274 r.w.s. 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on noticing that the appellant had failed to submit the prescribed audit report as envisaged under provisions of section 44AB of the Act. In respect of show cause notice the appellant could not file any explanation. In the circumstances the AO had proceeded with levy of penalty

SYEDALI EBRAHIM,NEYYATTINKARA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, appeals filed by the appellant stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 760/COCH/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

For Appellant: Smt. Divya Ravindran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 274Section 44A

274 r.w.s. 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on noticing that the appellant had failed to submit the prescribed audit report as envisaged under provisions of section 44AB of the Act. In respect of show cause notice the appellant could not file any explanation. In the circumstances the AO had proceeded with levy of penalty

M/S.VIJAYA HOSPITALITY AND RESORTS LTD,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ADCIT(TDS), COCHIN

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

ITA 96/COCH/2015[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Cochin24 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Thomas Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamunna Devi, Sr.DR
Section 271CSection 273Section 273B

condone the delay in filing this appeal and proceed to dispose of this appeal on merits. 3. The solitary issue raised is whether the CIT(A) is justified in confirming the Assessing Officer’s order, wherein penalty 2 ITA No.96/Coch/2015. M/s.Vijaya Hospitality and Resorts Limited. has been imposed u/s 271C of the I.T.Act amounting to Rs.9

CENTRAL MEDICAL STORES,VALANCHERY vs. THE ITO, TIRUR

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

ITA 97/COCH/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Central Medical Store The Income Tax Officer Central Bazar, Valanchery Ward - 1, Tirur Vs. Tirur, Malapuram 679552 Malapuram 676101 Pan – Aaefc4396B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri K. Kittu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 234ASection 271(1)Section 274Section 44A

condone the delay. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed the return of income on 13.03.2016 electronically disclosing total income of Rs.21,590/- The assessee is running a business in the name and style of M/s. Central Medical Stores which is a partnership firm with S/Shri K.P. Rayin Kutty Haji, K.P. Jamal Mohammed, K.P. Zakir

THURUTHIYATH SUMA,WAYANAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, KALPETTA, WAYANAD

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed, and her stay application, dismissed

ITA 852/COCH/2023[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 May 2024

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Aruj Raj S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 274

section 144 & 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 20.03.2022 for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. The assessee’s Stay Application (SA) qua the appeal was also posted for hearing along with. 2. The short point involved in the instant appeal is if the 144-day delay in filing the appeal before