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.

28 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 32(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai689Chennai660Delhi630Kolkata455Bangalore265Hyderabad229Ahmedabad216Jaipur156Karnataka150Chandigarh138Pune126Nagpur114Amritsar89Raipur87Surat73Visakhapatnam70Lucknow66Indore65Panaji56Rajkot53Cuttack44Calcutta41SC33Cochin28Guwahati26Patna24Telangana17Agra16Allahabad15Varanasi11Jabalpur7Jodhpur7Dehradun6Rajasthan5Ranchi4Himachal Pradesh3Orissa3Andhra Pradesh2A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Kerala1DIPAK MISRA R.K. AGRAWAL PRAFULLA C. PANT1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 80P29Section 234E16Deduction11Section 25010Limitation/Time-bar10Section 689TDS9Condonation of Delay9Section 143(3)

M/S. PARAVUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK,KOLLAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeal and stay petition filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 767/COCH/2023[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2024

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri Santosh P. Abraham, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, D.R
Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

32 ITR 664, AIR 1957 SC 852, held as under (857 of AIR 1957 SC): “A finding on a question of fact is open to attack under section 66(1) as erroneous in law if there is no evidence to support it or if it is perverse.” A full Bench of the Orissa High Court, in the case of Brajabandhu

Showing 1–20 of 28 · Page 1 of 2

8
Section 200A8
Section 566
Section 1486

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

condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the courts do not enjoy unlimited and unbridled discretionary powers. All discretionary powers, especially judicial powers, have to be exercised within reasonable bounds, known to the law. The discretion has to be exercised in a systematic manner informed by reason. Whims or fancies; prejudices or predilections cannot and should

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

condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the courts do not enjoy unlimited and unbridled discretionary powers. All discretionary powers, especially judicial powers, have to be exercised within reasonable bounds, known to the law. The discretion has to be exercised in a systematic manner informed by reason. Whims or fancies; prejudices or predilections cannot and should

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

condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the courts do not enjoy unlimited and unbridled discretionary powers. All discretionary powers, especially judicial powers, have to be exercised within reasonable bounds, known to the law. The discretion has to be exercised in a systematic manner informed by reason. Whims or fancies; prejudices or predilections cannot and should

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

condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the courts do not enjoy unlimited and unbridled discretionary powers. All discretionary powers, especially judicial powers, have to be exercised within reasonable bounds, known to the law. The discretion has to be exercised in a systematic manner informed by reason. Whims or fancies; prejudices or predilections cannot and should

THE KUNDARA PANCHAYATH SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD,KOLLAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4, KOLLAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 803/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri G.Surendranath Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 250Section 80PSection 8O

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 6. The assesse is a credit co-operative society registered under Kerala Co-operative Societies Act 1969. For the AY 2012-13 the assesse filed its return of income on 9.11.2019. As per the return the taxable income was Nil after claiming deduction

THE KUNDARA PANCHAYATH SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD,KOLLAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4, KOLLAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 802/COCH/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri G.Surendranath Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 250Section 80PSection 8O

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 6. The assesse is a credit co-operative society registered under Kerala Co-operative Societies Act 1969. For the AY 2012-13 the assesse filed its return of income on 9.11.2019. As per the return the taxable income was Nil after claiming deduction

THE KUNDARA PANCHAYATH SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD,KOLLAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, KOLLAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 805/COCH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri G.Surendranath Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 250Section 80PSection 8O

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 6. The assesse is a credit co-operative society registered under Kerala Co-operative Societies Act 1969. For the AY 2012-13 the assesse filed its return of income on 9.11.2019. As per the return the taxable income was Nil after claiming deduction

ENERGY MANAGEMENT CENTRE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THIRUVANATHAPURAM

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, with directions as above

ITA 174/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 143(1)Section 154

Section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) for the Assessment Year 2018–19. 2. At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 32 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a condonation

CHRISTUDANAM YASSAYA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

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

ITA 840/COCH/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2011-12 Christudanam Yassaya .......... Appellant Bathel Kp 17A Maruthoor, Vattapara P.O. Thiruvananthapuram 695028 [Pan: Acmpy4412C] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1) .......... Respondent Aayakar Bhavan, Kowdiar Thiruvananthapuram 695003

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 142Section 144Section 148Section 264Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

32,110/-. 3. The appellant, in response to the show cause notice u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, could not file original return of income as he was under treatment for psychological issues. However, the AO rejected the above explanation and proceeded with levy of penalty of Rs. 9,96,672/- vide order dated 27.09.2021. 4. Being aggrieved

M/S THURAYUR SERVICE CO -OP BANK LTD,KOZHIKODE vs. THE ITO WARD 2(1), KOZHIKODE

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed and the order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to the contrary are set aside

ITA 195/COCH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 22Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)

section 56 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. 6. Delay of 32 days each in both these cases is condoned as per condonation averments in light of Collector, Land Acquisition vs., MST Katiji [1987] 167 ITR 471 (SC) having settled the law long back that all such technical aspects must make a way for the cause of substantial justice

M/S THURAYUR SERVICE CO -OP BANK LTD,KOZHIKODE vs. THE ITO WARD 2(1), KOZHIKODE

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed and the order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to the contrary are set aside

ITA 196/COCH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 22Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)

section 56 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. 6. Delay of 32 days each in both these cases is condoned as per condonation averments in light of Collector, Land Acquisition vs., MST Katiji [1987] 167 ITR 471 (SC) having settled the law long back that all such technical aspects must make a way for the cause of substantial justice

GOVERNMENT MENTAL HOSPITAL,KUTHIRAVATTAM vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC (TDS), KOZHIKODE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 278/COCH/2021[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Jun 2022AY 2013-2014

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

For Appellant: Sri.Richard Mathew, CAFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamunna Devi, Sr.DR
Section 200ASection 234E

32,490 3 ITA Nos.275-278/Coch/2021. Government Mental Health Centre. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeals before the first appellate authority. There was delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeals on delay as well as on merits. The CIT(A), while dismissing the case on merits, relied on the judgment

GOVERNMENT MENTAL HOSPITAL,KUTHIRAVATTAM vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC (TDS), KOZHIKODE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 277/COCH/2021[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Jun 2022AY 2015-2016

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

For Appellant: Sri.Richard Mathew, CAFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamunna Devi, Sr.DR
Section 200ASection 234E

32,490 3 ITA Nos.275-278/Coch/2021. Government Mental Health Centre. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeals before the first appellate authority. There was delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeals on delay as well as on merits. The CIT(A), while dismissing the case on merits, relied on the judgment

GOVERNMENT MENTAL HOSPITAL,KUTHIRAVATTAM vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC (TDS),, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 276/COCH/2021[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Jun 2022AY 2013-2014

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

For Appellant: Sri.Richard Mathew, CAFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamunna Devi, Sr.DR
Section 200ASection 234E

32,490 3 ITA Nos.275-278/Coch/2021. Government Mental Health Centre. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeals before the first appellate authority. There was delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeals on delay as well as on merits. The CIT(A), while dismissing the case on merits, relied on the judgment

GOVERNMENT MENTAL HOSPITAL,KUTHIRAVATTAM vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC (TDS), KOZHIKODE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 275/COCH/2021[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Jun 2022AY 2013-2014

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

For Appellant: Sri.Richard Mathew, CAFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamunna Devi, Sr.DR
Section 200ASection 234E

32,490 3 ITA Nos.275-278/Coch/2021. Government Mental Health Centre. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeals before the first appellate authority. There was delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeals on delay as well as on merits. The CIT(A), while dismissing the case on merits, relied on the judgment

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

KERALA BEEDI AND CIGAR WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD,KANNUR vs. ITO,EXEMPTION WARD , KANNUR

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 668/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: BEFORESHRI. INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBERAND SHRI. ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri V M Veeramani, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Leena Lal, (SR.AR.)
Section 11Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270A

1,58,03,104/- instead of Rs.4,61,27,469/-. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) but the assessee fails to succeed. Being aggrieved the assessee filed an appeal before us. 4. We heard the rival submission and considered the documents available in the record. The assessee filed Form 10B with delay which was condoned

KERALA BEEDI AND CIGAR WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD,KANNUR vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 659/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: BEFORESHRI. INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBERAND SHRI. ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri V M Veeramani, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Leena Lal, (SR.AR.)
Section 11Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270A

1,58,03,104/- instead of Rs.4,61,27,469/-. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) but the assessee fails to succeed. Being aggrieved the assessee filed an appeal before us. 4. We heard the rival submission and considered the documents available in the record. The assessee filed Form 10B with delay which was condoned

KANDALLOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO2166,ALAPPUZHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA

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

ITA 234/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Sri.R.Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR
Section 139(1)Section 250Section 80A(5)Section 80P

condone the delay of 371 days in filing this appeal and proceed to dispose of the same on merits. 3. The grounds raised read as follows:- “1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in denying the deduction u/s 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the ground that the return of income was not filed within