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.

58 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 33(5)clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai721Delhi632Mumbai592Kolkata361Bangalore298Hyderabad240Ahmedabad236Jaipur168Raipur167Karnataka147Chandigarh138Pune137Nagpur118Surat88Amritsar75Indore63Cochin58Lucknow58Cuttack43Panaji41Calcutta37Rajkot36SC30Visakhapatnam25Patna23Telangana16Varanasi11Allahabad8Guwahati7Dehradun6Ranchi5Agra5Rajasthan5Orissa4Jodhpur3Himachal Pradesh2Kerala1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1R.M. LODHA ANIL R. DAVE1DIPAK MISRA R.K. AGRAWAL PRAFULLA C. PANT1Andhra Pradesh1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

TDS38Section 20033Section 206C33Section 19233Section 123Section 220(2)23Section 246A23Section 20123Section 201(1)23

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

Section 5. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage the diligence of the party or its bona fides may fall for consideration.” (emphasis supplied) 23. On the facts remedy of appeal. The averments made in the application seeking condonation of delay in filing appeals do not show

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 Cochin

Showing 1–20 of 58 · Page 1 of 3

Limitation/Time-bar21
Disallowance10
Deduction8
07 Nov 2025
AY 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

Section 5. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage the diligence of the party or its bona fides may fall for consideration.” (emphasis supplied) 23. On the facts remedy of appeal. The averments made in the application seeking condonation of delay in filing appeals do not show

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

Section 5. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage the diligence of the party or its bona fides may fall for consideration.” (emphasis supplied) 23. On the facts remedy of appeal. The averments made in the application seeking condonation of delay in filing appeals do not show

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

Section 5. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage the diligence of the party or its bona fides may fall for consideration.” (emphasis supplied) 23. On the facts remedy of appeal. The averments made in the application seeking condonation of delay in filing appeals do not show

THE AROOR CENTRAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,ALAPPUZHA vs. ITO, WARD -2, ALAPPUZHA

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

ITA 372/COCH/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kumar Varma, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80ASection 80P

section 80AC of the Act. Accordingly, disallowed the claim for deduction u/s. 80P after making several disallowances. The AO assessed income of Rs. 94,66,941/- under the head ‘business’. 5. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal placing reliance on 3 ITA 371 & 372/Coch/2025/SA 51 & 52/C/2024 The Aroor

THE AROOR CENTRAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,ALAPPUZHA vs. ITO, WARD -5, ALAPPUZHA

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

ITA 371/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kumar Varma, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80ASection 80P

section 80AC of the Act. Accordingly, disallowed the claim for deduction u/s. 80P after making several disallowances. The AO assessed income of Rs. 94,66,941/- under the head ‘business’. 5. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal placing reliance on 3 ITA 371 & 372/Coch/2025/SA 51 & 52/C/2024 The Aroor

NEW COCHIN REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS,KOCHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, KOCHI

The appeal is dismissed both on the grounds of delay and latches and also as defective appeal

ITA 924/COCH/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Mar 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

For Appellant: Shri K. Kittu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

33,580 e) JCB & Truck expenses Rs. 35,52,507 f) Loading & Unloading Rs. 6,87,935 4. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO. 5. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. 6. At the outset we find that

NEW COCHIN REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS,KOCHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, KOCHI

The appeal is dismissed both on the grounds of delay and latches and also as defective appeal

ITA 925/COCH/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Mar 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

For Appellant: Shri K. Kittu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

33,580 e) JCB & Truck expenses Rs. 35,52,507 f) Loading & Unloading Rs. 6,87,935 4. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO. 5. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. 6. At the outset we find that

THRISSUR VANITHA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD NO. R 1189,THIRUVAMBADY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 721/COCH/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri Varghese John, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 119(2)(b)Section 13Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 80ASection 80P

33,267/-. While doing so, the AO denied the claim for deduction u/s. 80P of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO by holding that the appellant had not filed the return of income for AY 2019-20 within the due date prescribed

THRISSUR VANITHA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,PUNKUNNAM vs. ITO WARD 2(1), THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 727/COCH/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri Varghese John, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 119(2)(b)Section 13Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 80ASection 80P

33,267/-. While doing so, the AO denied the claim for deduction u/s. 80P of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO by holding that the appellant had not filed the return of income for AY 2019-20 within the due date prescribed

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

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

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

COMMISSIONER FOR GOVT EXAMINATIONS ,POOJAPPURA vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(2), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 984/COCH/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: ----- None -----For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 192Section 200Section 206CSection 234E

delay as liable to be condoned, no serious objection to which was raised by Smt. Devi, the ld. Sr. DR. 4. None appeared for the appellant when the appeals were called out for hearing, and neither is there any adjournment motion despite service of notice of hearing. Hearing in the matter was accordingly proceeded ex parte qua the assessee. 5

COMMISSIONER FOR GOVT EXAMINATIONS ,POOJAPPURA vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(2), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 990/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: ----- None -----For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 192Section 200Section 206CSection 234E

delay as liable to be condoned, no serious objection to which was raised by Smt. Devi, the ld. Sr. DR. 4. None appeared for the appellant when the appeals were called out for hearing, and neither is there any adjournment motion despite service of notice of hearing. Hearing in the matter was accordingly proceeded ex parte qua the assessee. 5

COMMISSIONER FOR GOVT EXAMINATIONS ,POOJAPPURA vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(2), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 989/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: ----- None -----For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 192Section 200Section 206CSection 234E

delay as liable to be condoned, no serious objection to which was raised by Smt. Devi, the ld. Sr. DR. 4. None appeared for the appellant when the appeals were called out for hearing, and neither is there any adjournment motion despite service of notice of hearing. Hearing in the matter was accordingly proceeded ex parte qua the assessee. 5

COMMISSIONER FOR GOVT EXAMINATIONS ,POOJAPPURA vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(2), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 986/COCH/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: ----- None -----For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 192Section 200Section 206CSection 234E

delay as liable to be condoned, no serious objection to which was raised by Smt. Devi, the ld. Sr. DR. 4. None appeared for the appellant when the appeals were called out for hearing, and neither is there any adjournment motion despite service of notice of hearing. Hearing in the matter was accordingly proceeded ex parte qua the assessee. 5

COMMISSIONER FOR GOVT EXAMINATIONS ,POOJAPPURA vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(2), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 988/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: ----- None -----For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 192Section 200Section 206CSection 234E

delay as liable to be condoned, no serious objection to which was raised by Smt. Devi, the ld. Sr. DR. 4. None appeared for the appellant when the appeals were called out for hearing, and neither is there any adjournment motion despite service of notice of hearing. Hearing in the matter was accordingly proceeded ex parte qua the assessee. 5

COMMISSIONER FOR GOVT EXAMINATIONS ,POOJAPPURA vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(2), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 992/COCH/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: ----- None -----For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 192Section 200Section 206CSection 234E

delay as liable to be condoned, no serious objection to which was raised by Smt. Devi, the ld. Sr. DR. 4. None appeared for the appellant when the appeals were called out for hearing, and neither is there any adjournment motion despite service of notice of hearing. Hearing in the matter was accordingly proceeded ex parte qua the assessee. 5

COMMISSIONER FOR GOVT EXAMINATIONS ,POOJAPPURA vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(2), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 994/COCH/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Apr 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: ----- None -----For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 192Section 200Section 206CSection 234E

delay as liable to be condoned, no serious objection to which was raised by Smt. Devi, the ld. Sr. DR. 4. None appeared for the appellant when the appeals were called out for hearing, and neither is there any adjournment motion despite service of notice of hearing. Hearing in the matter was accordingly proceeded ex parte qua the assessee. 5

COMMISSIONER FOR GOVT EXAMINATIONS ,POOJAPPURA vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(2), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 985/COCH/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: ----- None -----For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 192Section 200Section 206CSection 234E

delay as liable to be condoned, no serious objection to which was raised by Smt. Devi, the ld. Sr. DR. 4. None appeared for the appellant when the appeals were called out for hearing, and neither is there any adjournment motion despite service of notice of hearing. Hearing in the matter was accordingly proceeded ex parte qua the assessee. 5