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.

5 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 285clear

Sorted by relevance

Karnataka100Mumbai59Delhi53Kolkata39Hyderabad34Panaji32Chennai30Jaipur24Pune24Surat18Indore14Lucknow12Ahmedabad11Chandigarh9Bangalore8Cuttack8Raipur8Varanasi6Amritsar6Allahabad5Guwahati5Cochin5Kerala4Rajkot4Dehradun4SC3Agra2Visakhapatnam1Andhra Pradesh1Calcutta1Jabalpur1Jodhpur1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 133A6Survey u/s 133A4Addition to Income3Section 148A2Section 1472Section 1482Limitation/Time-bar2

KOYILANDY TALUK GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY,KOZHIKODE vs. ITO,WARD 2(2), KOZHIKODE

ITA 217/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 148A

Section 148A(b), making an addition of Rs. 57,76,285. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). However, due to non-compliance and absence during hearings, the appeal was decided ex parte, without affording an opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its claim. 4. The assessee has challenged the CIT(A)’s order before

GOOD HOMES PVT LTD,KOCHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 884/COCH/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Aug 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shriabyt.Varkey, Jm

Sri.A.Gopalakrishnan, CA
For Appellant:
For Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamuna Devi, Sr.AR
Section 133ASection 147Section 148

section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’) dated 18.3.2015 and 29.3.2014 for assessment year (AY) 2007-2008, respectively. The background facts of both the cases being same, these are heard together, and are being disposed of pera common, consolidated order for the sake of convenience. ITA Nos.870& 884 /Coch/2022 (AY 2007-08) Ajit

AJIT ASSOCIATES PRIVATE LIMITED,ERNAKULAM vs. JCIT, CORPORATE RANGE - 1, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 870/COCH/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Aug 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shriabyt.Varkey, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.A.Gopalakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamuna Devi, Sr.AR
Section 133ASection 147Section 148

section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’) dated 18.3.2015 and 29.3.2014 for assessment year (AY) 2007-2008, respectively. The background facts of both the cases being same, these are heard together, and are being disposed of pera common, consolidated order for the sake of convenience. ITA Nos.870& 884 /Coch/2022 (AY 2007-08) Ajit

M/S.HILLWOOD IMPORTS AND EXPORTS P. LTD,CALICUT vs. THE ITO(TDS), CALICUT

In the result, the appeals of the assesses are dismissed

ITA 448/COCH/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Aug 2019AY 2008-09

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

Section 133A

section 65A nd 65B of the Evidence Act, 1872 r.w.s. 93 and 2nd schedule of the Information Technology Act, 2000 before adopting the pen drives obtained from the assessee as evidence against the assessee. 6.5 The Ld. AR also submitted that the assessments were made based on recovery of pen drives without following basic principles of natural justice. Hence

M/S.HILLWOOD IMPORTS AND EXPORTS P. LTD,CALICUT vs. THE ITO(TDS), CALICUT

In the result, the appeals of the assesses are dismissed

ITA 449/COCH/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

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

Section 133A

section 65A nd 65B of the Evidence Act, 1872 r.w.s. 93 and 2nd schedule of the Information Technology Act, 2000 before adopting the pen drives obtained from the assessee as evidence against the assessee. 6.5 The Ld. AR also submitted that the assessments were made based on recovery of pen drives without following basic principles of natural justice. Hence