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 275clear

Sorted by relevance

Karnataka102Mumbai65Chandigarh61Delhi54Ahmedabad54Jaipur52Chennai43Kolkata40Hyderabad34Bangalore32Surat25Cuttack14Nagpur13Lucknow10Pune9Indore7Cochin7Patna4Visakhapatnam3Panaji3Rajkot2Jodhpur1Andhra Pradesh1Calcutta1Jabalpur1Agra1Raipur1Rajasthan1Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)12Section 275(1)(c)12Section 271B12Section 1448Section 2748Section 1486Penalty6Limitation/Time-bar6Section 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

4
Section 145A4
Revision u/s 2634
Cash Deposit2

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

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

KALLUMALA AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD NO HW 14,ALAPPUZHA vs. ITO, WARD 2, THIRUVALLA

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

ITA 119/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sabu C S, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271BSection 275Section 44ASection 80P

275 r.w.s 271B of the Act on 29/03/2022 calling upon the appellant to show cause as to why an order imposing penalty U/s. 271B of the Act cannot be passed. In response to the show cause notice, the appellant has filed a detailed explanation which is extracted in the order passed by the AO. The substance of the explanation

KALLUMALA AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD NO HW 14,ALAPPUZHA vs. ITO, WARD 2, THIRUVALLA

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

ITA 118/COCH/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sabu C S, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271BSection 275Section 44ASection 80P

275 r.w.s 271B of the Act on 29/03/2022 calling upon the appellant to show cause as to why an order imposing penalty U/s. 271B of the Act cannot be passed. In response to the show cause notice, the appellant has filed a detailed explanation which is extracted in the order passed by the AO. The substance of the explanation

MARINE BUSINESS ASSOCIATES,KANNUR vs. ITO, KANNUR

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

ITA 558/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.Girly Albert, Sr.DR
Section 145A

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income declaring total income of Rs.37,690 and thereafter the case was selected for scrutiny and the AO determined the income at Rs.6,06,500 by making addition under the head underreporting of closing stock