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.

86 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 30clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,223Chennai1,134Delhi1,028Kolkata624Pune559Hyderabad512Ahmedabad487Bangalore478Jaipur389Patna229Chandigarh213Karnataka185Surat166Nagpur156Visakhapatnam147Lucknow136Amritsar126Raipur125Indore119Rajkot93Cochin86Cuttack86Agra55Panaji50Calcutta49SC41Jodhpur38Guwahati38Dehradun31Allahabad24Varanasi22Jabalpur22Telangana21Orissa5Kerala5Rajasthan5Andhra Pradesh3Himachal Pradesh3Ranchi3A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Punjab & Haryana1DIPAK MISRA R.K. AGRAWAL PRAFULLA C. PANT1

Key Topics

Condonation of Delay32Addition to Income29Section 220(2)28TDS28Section 143(3)27Section 123Section 246A23Section 20123Section 201(1)

SRI.VARUGEHESE M. UTHUP,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE,, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 164/COCH/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

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

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 249(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

condonation of delay in filing the appeals was not granted. According to the CIT(A), as per the IT Act, for an appeal to be valid, the appeal has to be filed, as per section 249(2)(b) within 30

SRI VARGHESE M.UTHUP,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT,CEN-CIRCLE-2, KOCHI

Showing 1–20 of 86 · Page 1 of 5

23
Penalty18
Section 80P17
Limitation/Time-bar17

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 161/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

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

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 249(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

condonation of delay in filing the appeals was not granted. According to the CIT(A), as per the IT Act, for an appeal to be valid, the appeal has to be filed, as per section 249(2)(b) within 30

SRI.VARUGEHESE M. UTHUP,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE,, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 168/COCH/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

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

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 249(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

condonation of delay in filing the appeals was not granted. According to the CIT(A), as per the IT Act, for an appeal to be valid, the appeal has to be filed, as per section 249(2)(b) within 30

SRI.VARUGEHESE M. UTHUP,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE,, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 166/COCH/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2019AY 2015-16

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

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 249(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

condonation of delay in filing the appeals was not granted. According to the CIT(A), as per the IT Act, for an appeal to be valid, the appeal has to be filed, as per section 249(2)(b) within 30

SRI.VARUGEHESE M. UTHUP,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE,, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 170/COCH/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

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

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 249(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

condonation of delay in filing the appeals was not granted. According to the CIT(A), as per the IT Act, for an appeal to be valid, the appeal has to be filed, as per section 249(2)(b) within 30

SRI.VARUGEHESE M. UTHUP,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE,, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 165/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

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

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 249(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

condonation of delay in filing the appeals was not granted. According to the CIT(A), as per the IT Act, for an appeal to be valid, the appeal has to be filed, as per section 249(2)(b) within 30

SRI.VARUGEHESE M. UTHUP,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE,, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 163/COCH/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

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

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 249(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

condonation of delay in filing the appeals was not granted. According to the CIT(A), as per the IT Act, for an appeal to be valid, the appeal has to be filed, as per section 249(2)(b) within 30

SRI VARGHESE M.UTHUP,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT,CEN-CIRCLE-2, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 162/COCH/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

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

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 249(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

condonation of delay in filing the appeals was not granted. According to the CIT(A), as per the IT Act, for an appeal to be valid, the appeal has to be filed, as per section 249(2)(b) within 30

SRI.VARUGEHESE M. UTHUP,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE,, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 167/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

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

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 249(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

condonation of delay in filing the appeals was not granted. According to the CIT(A), as per the IT Act, for an appeal to be valid, the appeal has to be filed, as per section 249(2)(b) within 30

SRI.VARUGEHESE M. UTHUP,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE,, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 169/COCH/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

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

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 249(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

condonation of delay in filing the appeals was not granted. According to the CIT(A), as per the IT Act, for an appeal to be valid, the appeal has to be filed, as per section 249(2)(b) within 30

SRI.VARUGEHESE M. UTHUP,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE,, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 171/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

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

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 249(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

condonation of delay in filing the appeals was not granted. According to the CIT(A), as per the IT Act, for an appeal to be valid, the appeal has to be filed, as per section 249(2)(b) within 30

SRI.VARUGEHESE M. UTHUP,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE,, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 172/COCH/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2019AY 2015-16

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

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 249(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

condonation of delay in filing the appeals was not granted. According to the CIT(A), as per the IT Act, for an appeal to be valid, the appeal has to be filed, as per section 249(2)(b) within 30

PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE KUNNAMANGALAM KOZHIKODE,KOZHIKODE vs. ITO ,WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 762/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Richard Mathews, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

30. In Postmaster General and others v. Living Media India Limited, (2012) 3 SCC 563, this Court, while dismissing the application for condonation of delay of 427 days in filing the Special Leave Petition, held that condonation of delay is not an exception and it should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the government departments. In that case

PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE KUNNAMANGALAM,KOZHIKODE vs. ITO, WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 761/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Richard Mathews, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

30. In Postmaster General and others v. Living Media India Limited, (2012) 3 SCC 563, this Court, while dismissing the application for condonation of delay of 427 days in filing the Special Leave Petition, held that condonation of delay is not an exception and it should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the government departments. In that case

PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE KUNNAMANAGALAM KOZHIKODE,KOZHIKODE vs. ITO,WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 763/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Richard Mathews, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

30. In Postmaster General and others v. Living Media India Limited, (2012) 3 SCC 563, this Court, while dismissing the application for condonation of delay of 427 days in filing the Special Leave Petition, held that condonation of delay is not an exception and it should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the government departments. In that case

PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE KUNNAMANGALAM,KOZHIKODE vs. ITO, WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 764/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Richard Mathews, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

30. In Postmaster General and others v. Living Media India Limited, (2012) 3 SCC 563, this Court, while dismissing the application for condonation of delay of 427 days in filing the Special Leave Petition, held that condonation of delay is not an exception and it should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the government departments. In that case

M/S.KERALA MEDICAL SERVICES CORPN LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, WD-1(4), TRIVANDRUM

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 108/COCH/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 May 2019AY 2011-12

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

Section 249(3)

delay was only for a very short period and the assessee was not going to gain anything from it. 4.2 It is to be noted that the landmark decision on the issue of condonation by the Apex Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katigi (167 ITR 471) wherein the Apex Court has given guidelines that courts

M/S.KERALA MEDICAL SERVICES CORPN LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, WD-1(4), TRIVANDRUM

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 109/COCH/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 May 2019AY 2012-13

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

Section 249(3)

delay was only for a very short period and the assessee was not going to gain anything from it. 4.2 It is to be noted that the landmark decision on the issue of condonation by the Apex Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katigi (167 ITR 471) wherein the Apex Court has given guidelines that courts

M/S.KERALA MEDICAL SERVICES CORPN LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, WD-1(4), TRIVANDRUM

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 107/COCH/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 May 2019AY 2010-11

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

Section 249(3)

delay was only for a very short period and the assessee was not going to gain anything from it. 4.2 It is to be noted that the landmark decision on the issue of condonation by the Apex Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katigi (167 ITR 471) wherein the Apex Court has given guidelines that courts

SAYEGH PAINT FACTORIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,ERNAKULAM vs. CORPORATE CIR 2(1), KOCHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the stay petition is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 451/COCH/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Snr.AR
Section 144B(6)(vii)Section 148Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

30-10-2025 ORDER PER SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER This is an appeal filed by the assessee challenging the order of the NFAC, Delhi dated 15/05/2025 in respect of the A.Y. 2019-20 and raised the following grounds: Page 2 of 7 S.A. No. 69/Coch/2025 & Tax effect relating to each Grounds of Appeal ground of appeal (see note below