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.

13 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 279(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai186Karnataka103Mumbai78Chandigarh58Kolkata29Delhi28Bangalore19Jaipur19Cochin13Cuttack10Ahmedabad7Hyderabad7Patna7Nagpur7Surat6Pune6Lucknow4SC3Visakhapatnam2Indore2Jodhpur2Panaji1Guwahati1Raipur1Rajasthan1Rajkot1Andhra Pradesh1Amritsar1Telangana1Agra1

Key Topics

Section 12A28Section 1121Section 139(1)20Section 271B12Addition to Income9Exemption9Section 1488Section 153A7Section 10A

M/S.KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

ITA 261/COCH/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2019AY 2012-13

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

Section 10ASection 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

279 ITR 89) (All.) 6. The Ld. DR submitted that as per section 139(4A) of the Act, it is mandatory for the assessee to furnish return of income under section 139(1) of the Act so as to avail exemption u/s. 11 of the Act. Since the assessee has not complied with this requirement, the assessee is not entitled

7
Section 1327
Charitable Trust7
Condonation of Delay6

M/S.KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

ITA 255/COCH/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2019AY 2006-07

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

Section 10ASection 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

279 ITR 89) (All.) 6. The Ld. DR submitted that as per section 139(4A) of the Act, it is mandatory for the assessee to furnish return of income under section 139(1) of the Act so as to avail exemption u/s. 11 of the Act. Since the assessee has not complied with this requirement, the assessee is not entitled

M/S.KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

ITA 256/COCH/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2019AY 2007-08

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

Section 10ASection 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

279 ITR 89) (All.) 6. The Ld. DR submitted that as per section 139(4A) of the Act, it is mandatory for the assessee to furnish return of income under section 139(1) of the Act so as to avail exemption u/s. 11 of the Act. Since the assessee has not complied with this requirement, the assessee is not entitled

M/S.KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

ITA 258/COCH/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2019AY 2009-10

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

Section 10ASection 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

279 ITR 89) (All.) 6. The Ld. DR submitted that as per section 139(4A) of the Act, it is mandatory for the assessee to furnish return of income under section 139(1) of the Act so as to avail exemption u/s. 11 of the Act. Since the assessee has not complied with this requirement, the assessee is not entitled

M/S.KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

ITA 260/COCH/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2019AY 2011-12

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

Section 10ASection 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

279 ITR 89) (All.) 6. The Ld. DR submitted that as per section 139(4A) of the Act, it is mandatory for the assessee to furnish return of income under section 139(1) of the Act so as to avail exemption u/s. 11 of the Act. Since the assessee has not complied with this requirement, the assessee is not entitled

M/S.KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

ITA 257/COCH/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2019AY 2008-09

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

Section 10ASection 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

279 ITR 89) (All.) 6. The Ld. DR submitted that as per section 139(4A) of the Act, it is mandatory for the assessee to furnish return of income under section 139(1) of the Act so as to avail exemption u/s. 11 of the Act. Since the assessee has not complied with this requirement, the assessee is not entitled

M/S.KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

ITA 259/COCH/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2019AY 2010-11

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

Section 10ASection 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

279 ITR 89) (All.) 6. The Ld. DR submitted that as per section 139(4A) of the Act, it is mandatory for the assessee to furnish return of income under section 139(1) of the Act so as to avail exemption u/s. 11 of the Act. Since the assessee has not complied with this requirement, the assessee is not entitled

NADATHARA GRAMA VIKASANA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,THRISSUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed and the stay applications are dismissed

ITA 425/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Biju, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 282(1)

1) of the Act. In the circumstances, the AO proceeded with framing of best judgement assessment u/s. 144 of the Act by brining to tax the cash deposits of Rs. 5,70,34,279/- as unexplained money of the appellant society. 5. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal

NADATHARA GRAMA VIKASANA SOCIETY LTD,THRISSUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), , THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed and the stay applications are dismissed

ITA 426/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Biju, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 282(1)

1) of the Act. In the circumstances, the AO proceeded with framing of best judgement assessment u/s. 144 of the Act by brining to tax the cash deposits of Rs. 5,70,34,279/- as unexplained money of the appellant society. 5. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal

MR. ANIL,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO NON CORP WARD-1(1), KOCHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos 614 &

ITA 615/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm

For Appellant: Shri C.V. Vishnu Das KFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271A

279 days. The explanation was filed by the assessee before the 1st Appellate Authority which reproduced as below:- "It is humbly submitted that this prayer with a request for condonation of delayfor an extension of time to file this appeal before the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Appellant submits that there is a delay of 311 days

MR. ANIL,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO, NON CORP WARD-1(10, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos 614 &

ITA 614/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm

For Appellant: Shri C.V. Vishnu Das KFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271A

279 days. The explanation was filed by the assessee before the 1st Appellate Authority which reproduced as below:- "It is humbly submitted that this prayer with a request for condonation of delayfor an extension of time to file this appeal before the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Appellant submits that there is a delay of 311 days

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

delay in filing the appeal, as per the purpose of computing the period of limitation the date of the knowledge of order had to be reckoned. Consequently the question of condonation does not arise. Therefore, we proceed to dispose of the appeal on merits. 9. At the outset, we find that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex- parte

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

delay in filing the appeal, as per the purpose of computing the period of limitation the date of the knowledge of order had to be reckoned. Consequently the question of condonation does not arise. Therefore, we proceed to dispose of the appeal on merits. 9. At the outset, we find that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex- parte