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.

12 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 43Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai256Kolkata150Delhi149Pune120Mumbai96Bangalore77Nagpur59Hyderabad52Jaipur47Ahmedabad36Cuttack31Indore30Chandigarh27Surat26Lucknow25Visakhapatnam22Amritsar21Cochin12Raipur11Guwahati10Allahabad9Jodhpur7Varanasi6Calcutta3Rajkot3Patna3SC3Panaji1Dehradun1

Key Topics

Section 43B17Section 36(1)9Section 1548Section 36(1)(va)8Section 139(1)7Section 406Deduction6Limitation/Time-bar5Condonation of Delay

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

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

5
Disallowance5
Section 143(3)4
Section 363
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

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

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

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 36(1) (va) of the Income

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 36(1) (va) of the Income

SEA CASTLE AN AYURVEDIC AND LEISURE HOTEL(HILL & SEA VIEW AYURVEDIC BEACH RESORT),THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ITO, WARD 1(4), RANGE I, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 988/COCH/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

For Appellant: Ms. Krishna K., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 40Section 43B

section 43B of the Act. The AO also made addition of Rs. 2,50,000/- being the excess remuneration paid to partners u/s. 40(b) of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. 5. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before

SEA CASTLE AN AYURVEDIC AND LEISURE HOTEL(HILL & SEA VIEW AYURVEDIC BEACH RESORT),THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ITO, WARD 1(4), RANGE I, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 987/COCH/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

For Appellant: Ms. Krishna K., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 40Section 43B

section 43B of the Act. The AO also made addition of Rs. 2,50,000/- being the excess remuneration paid to partners u/s. 40(b) of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. 5. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before

DCIT, TRIVANDRUM vs. BRAHMOS AEROSPACE( THIRUVANANTHAPURAM) LTD, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal filedby

ITA 742/COCH/2019[2002-03]Status: HeardITAT Cochin23 Feb 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ramit Kochar, Am Deputy Commissioner Brahmos Aerospace Of Income Tax, (Thiruvananthapuram) Ltd., Circle-1(1), V. Chackai, Thiruvananthapuram Beach Post, Kerala Tiruvananthapuram, Kerala Pan – Aabck2217K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Smt. Jamunna Devi, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Abraham Joseph Markos, Adv
Section 139(1)Section 139(3)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 80

condone the delay and treat the return as valid , even if the said defect is not rectified within the period stipulated by AO in its notice u/s 139(9) of the 1961 Act, but the said defect stood rectified before assessment is completed. It is admitted position that the AO did not issue any such notice

ANDIAN KANDY RATHEESH,CALICUT vs. ITO, KOZHIKKODE

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

ITA 171/COCH/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Jul 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuandian Kandy Rateesh The Income Tax Officer 2.2171 A 1, Swastik Circle - 1(1), Tps Vs. Near Civil Station Road Kozhikode Calicut 673020 Pan – Acspr7919M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri P.V. VijayanFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

condone the delay of 23 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for hearing. 2. The solitary issue raised by the assessee whether the CIT(A) is justified in confirming the disallowance of employees’ contribution to PF and ESI under Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). 3. The brief facts

M/S.MAGNUM BUILDTECH,ALAPPUZHA vs. THE DCIT, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 317/COCH/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 May 2019AY 2006-07

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

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 40

condone the delay of 61 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal. A) The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is against law and facts and circumstances of the case. The order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a travesty of justice and cause