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.

97 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 36clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai953Mumbai725Delhi725Kolkata441Hyderabad372Pune369Jaipur293Bangalore278Ahmedabad269Chandigarh204Indore168Karnataka152Amritsar130Visakhapatnam114Surat113Raipur99Cochin97Nagpur90Cuttack84Lucknow82Panaji54Calcutta45Jodhpur34Guwahati34Rajkot31Patna29SC25Telangana21Allahabad19Varanasi18Agra14Jabalpur7Dehradun7Orissa6Rajasthan5Kerala5Andhra Pradesh2Ranchi2Himachal Pradesh1

Key Topics

Condonation of Delay61Section 80P46Section 143(3)42TDS35Deduction34Section 201(1)24Disallowance23Addition to Income19Section 250

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

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 Cochin

Showing 1–20 of 97 · Page 1 of 5

16
Section 43B15
Section 4014
Section 36(1)(va)14
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 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

SRI.PURUSOTHAMAN K.K.,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ITO, WD-3, , THIRUVALLA

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

ITA 51/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Jun 2019AY 2014-15

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

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

condone the delay of 79 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: A: The orders of the authorities below in so far as they are against the appellant are opposed to law, facts and circumstances of the case. B: The averments made before the first appellate

CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD(KURIANNOOR BRANCH), KUMBANAD P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ITO (TDS), ALAPPUZHA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed as

ITA 280/COCH/2019[2013-14 (27Q-Q2)]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Jul 2019

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

Section 200ASection 234E

36,200.00 3. The assessee explained before the CIT(A) that the reason for the delay in filing these appeals was that the officer handling TDS issues was transferred from the Branches and on subsequent notice by the Head Office, the appeals I.T.A. Nos. 280 to 291/Coch/2019 were instituted. However, the CIT(A) did not condone the delay by observing

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THRISSUR vs. THE CSB BANK LTD, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 542/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Satish Modi, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 144BSection 147Section 250

condone the delay of 60 days in filing the present appeal and proceed to examine the grounds raised in the present appeal. 2. The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal : “1. The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], New Delhi in DIN and Order No. DIN ITBA/APLS/S/250/2024-25/1074993866(1) dated 25.03.2025 against assessment

KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(1) & TPS, THRISSUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 933/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Daskerala State Financial Dy. Cit, Circle - 1(1) & Tps Enterprises Ltd. Thrissur Bhadratha, Museum Road Vs. Chembukkavu - 680020 Thrissur [Pan:Aabct3817A] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Harikrishnanunny, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 29.12.2019 for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18 by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Income Tax Department [CITA], vide it’s order dated 16.3.2022. 2. The appeal, filed on 17.10.2022, is time barred by 79 days, which is explained per the accompanying affidavit dated 12.10.2022 by the Principal

M/S KERALA STATE CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LTD,TRIVANRUM vs. DCIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 698/COCH/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 Mar 2020AY 2007-08

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

Section 2(24)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

condone the delay of 36 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. The assessee has raised the following common grounds of appeal except for variation in figures: 1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming disallowance of Employees Contribution to PF/ESI under section

M/S KERALA STATE CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LTD,TRIVANRUM vs. DCIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 699/COCH/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 Mar 2020AY 2010-11

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

Section 2(24)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

condone the delay of 36 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. The assessee has raised the following common grounds of appeal except for variation in figures: 1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming disallowance of Employees Contribution to PF/ESI under section

M/S KANAKA POLYPACK PRIVATE LIMITED,ALUVA vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), KOCHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 876/COCH/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Mar 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year :2018-19 M/S. Kanaka Polypack Private Limited, Acit, Vs. Xvi, Keezhmad Panchayat, Corporate Circle - 1(1), Ashokapuram,Aluva, Kochi – 682 018. Ernakulam District, Kerala – 683 101. Pan :Aafck 1498 J Assessee Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Manu Kurian, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

condone the delay of 12 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication 5. In so far as the question whether the employees contribution to Provident Fund and Employees State Insurance which the employer deducts and pays over to the concerned authorities beyond the date prescribed for payment of such contribution but nevertheless the contribution has been

THRISSUR DISTRICT POLICE CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THRISSUR

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 409/COCH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri M.Ramdas, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. A.R
Section 154Section 250Section 253(5)

condoning the delay of 96 days in filing both these appeals before this Tribunal and accordinglywe admit the same for adjudication. 4. Thebrief fact of the case are that the Assesseebeing an employees' co-operative society formed for the welfare of employees of Kerala Police department of Thrissur District and is registered under Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969.The Assessee

THRISSUR DISTRICT POLICE CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THRISSUR

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 408/COCH/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri M.Ramdas, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. A.R
Section 154Section 250Section 253(5)

condoning the delay of 96 days in filing both these appeals before this Tribunal and accordinglywe admit the same for adjudication. 4. Thebrief fact of the case are that the Assesseebeing an employees' co-operative society formed for the welfare of employees of Kerala Police department of Thrissur District and is registered under Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969.The Assessee

THE NEERIKODE SERVICE CO-OP BANK LIMITED NO 1682,NEERICODE vs. ITO WARD 3, ALUVA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed as not maintainable, and the stay applications dismissed as infructuous

ITA 954/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri K.K. Jose, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) dated 31.12.2019 for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18, by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [CIT(A)] vide its order dated 26.10.2021. 2. At the outset, it was observed that the instant appeal, filed on 09.11.2022, is delayed by 317 days. The same is accompanied

SAVE A FAMILY PLAN (INDIA),,KANJOOR vs. DCIT(EXEMPTION), KOCHI

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

ITA 138/COCH/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Save A Family Plan (India) Dy. Cit, Exemption Aiswaryagram, Parappuram San Juan Towers, 2Nd Floor Vs. Kanjoor - 683575 Old Railway Station Road [Pan:Aabts9439E] Kochi 682018 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Abraham J. Markose, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 260ASection 263

36 of 2023. 2. The factual backgrounds leading to the present appeal are that the appellant is a charitable trust formed under the Trust Act. It is also duly registered u/s. 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter "the Act") and Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA). The return of income for 2014-15 was filed on 10.12.2014 declaring

SHASTHA ENTERPRISES,KOLLAM vs. ITO, WARD 3, KOLLAM

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 304/COCH/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Jun 2025AY 2019-2020

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

For Appellant: Shri Sabu, CA
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

condone the delay in filing the appeals and proceed to dispose of the matters on merits. 5. The assessee filed its return of income for A.Y. 2019–20. The intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act was issued by the CPC, Bengaluru on 22.02.2020, wherein the employees’ contribution to PF and ESI amounting to Rs.19,02,852 was disallowed

KATHIKODE CHARITABLE TRUST,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER., THRISSUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes, and it’s stay petitions dismissed as infructuous

ITA 947/COCH/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Jojo, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2

section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), raising demands, including interest, at Rs.28.47 lakhs and Rs.37.75 lakhs for the two consecutive years respectively. The assessee ITA Nos. 947 & 948/Coch/2022 (AY : 2014-15) Kathikode Charitable Trust v. ITO admittedly did not act thereon, stating that it was ‘awaiting’ – whatever that would mean; Sh. Jojo, the learned counsel

KATHIKODE CHARITABLE TRUST,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THRISSUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes, and it’s stay petitions dismissed as infructuous

ITA 948/COCH/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Jojo, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2

section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), raising demands, including interest, at Rs.28.47 lakhs and Rs.37.75 lakhs for the two consecutive years respectively. The assessee ITA Nos. 947 & 948/Coch/2022 (AY : 2014-15) Kathikode Charitable Trust v. ITO admittedly did not act thereon, stating that it was ‘awaiting’ – whatever that would mean; Sh. Jojo, the learned counsel

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

section 139 shall be verified— …………….. (cc) in the case of a firm, by the managing partner thereof, or where for any unavoidable reason such managing partner is not able to verify the return, or where there is no managing partner as such, by any partner thereof, not being a minor; ………………….” 9. It is not the case of the appellant 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 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

section 139 shall be verified— …………….. (cc) in the case of a firm, by the managing partner thereof, or where for any unavoidable reason such managing partner is not able to verify the return, or where there is no managing partner as such, by any partner thereof, not being a minor; ………………….” 9. It is not the case of the appellant that