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.

26 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 451clear

Sorted by relevance

Patna150Karnataka100Mumbai48Ahmedabad37Kolkata35Chennai28Cochin26Raipur20Delhi17Jaipur14Bangalore9Hyderabad8Chandigarh6Indore3Lucknow3Nagpur3Cuttack2Surat2Visakhapatnam1Andhra Pradesh1Calcutta1Jodhpur1Pune1Rajkot1Telangana1

Key Topics

Section 123Section 220(2)23Section 246A23Section 20123Section 201(1)23TDS23Section 143(1)4Section 12A4Section 143(3)3

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

Showing 1–20 of 26 · Page 1 of 2

Business Income2
Charitable Trust2
Exemption2

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

THE ACIT, CORP CIRCLE-1(1), KOCHI, ERNAKULAM vs. APPOLO TYRES LTD, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 247/COCH/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Mar 2019AY 2006-07

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

Section 143(3)Section 80I

condone the delay of 52 days and admit the appeal for adjudication. I.T.A. Nos. 247,302, 339, 268&336/Coch/2018& C.O. Nos. 56&57/Coch/2018 6.2 The facts of the case are that this claim was not made in the original return of income or through a revised return of income. The claim was made during the course of assessment proceedings

M/S NOORUL ISLAM TRUST,THODUPUZHA vs. ACIT (TDS), KOCHI, KOCHI

ITA 459/COCH/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Dec 2022AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Smt. Krishna K., AdvFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 1Section 201Section 201(1)Section 220(2)Section 246A

delay with reasonable cause, we hold that the CIT(A) ought to have condoned the same followed by adequate opportunities for presenting it’s case(s) on merits. 6. Wereject the Revenue’s vehement contention supporting the CIT(A)’s reasoning therefore and restore these six quantum appeals ITA Nos. 461 to 446/Coch/2022 back

M/S NOORUL ISLAM TRUST,THODUPUZHA vs. ACIT (TDS), KOCHI, KOCHI

ITA 461/COCH/2022[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Dec 2022AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Smt. Krishna K., AdvFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 1Section 201Section 201(1)Section 220(2)Section 246A

delay with reasonable cause, we hold that the CIT(A) ought to have condoned the same followed by adequate opportunities for presenting it’s case(s) on merits. 6. Wereject the Revenue’s vehement contention supporting the CIT(A)’s reasoning therefore and restore these six quantum appeals ITA Nos. 461 to 446/Coch/2022 back

M/S NOORUL ISLAM TRUST,THODUPUZHA vs. ACIT (TDS), KOCHI, KOCHI

ITA 464/COCH/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Dec 2022AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Smt. Krishna K., AdvFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 1Section 201Section 201(1)Section 220(2)Section 246A

delay with reasonable cause, we hold that the CIT(A) ought to have condoned the same followed by adequate opportunities for presenting it’s case(s) on merits. 6. Wereject the Revenue’s vehement contention supporting the CIT(A)’s reasoning therefore and restore these six quantum appeals ITA Nos. 461 to 446/Coch/2022 back

M/S NOORUL ISLAM TRUST,THODUPUZHA vs. ACIT (TDS), KOCHI, KOCHI

ITA 445/COCH/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Dec 2022AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Smt. Krishna K., AdvFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 1Section 201Section 201(1)Section 220(2)Section 246A

delay with reasonable cause, we hold that the CIT(A) ought to have condoned the same followed by adequate opportunities for presenting it’s case(s) on merits. 6. Wereject the Revenue’s vehement contention supporting the CIT(A)’s reasoning therefore and restore these six quantum appeals ITA Nos. 461 to 446/Coch/2022 back

M/S NOORUL ISLAM TRUST,THODUPUZHA vs. ACIT (TDS), KOCHI, KOCHI

ITA 452/COCH/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Dec 2022AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Smt. Krishna K., AdvFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 1Section 201Section 201(1)Section 220(2)Section 246A

delay with reasonable cause, we hold that the CIT(A) ought to have condoned the same followed by adequate opportunities for presenting it’s case(s) on merits. 6. Wereject the Revenue’s vehement contention supporting the CIT(A)’s reasoning therefore and restore these six quantum appeals ITA Nos. 461 to 446/Coch/2022 back

M/S NOORUL ISLAM TRUST,THODUPUZHA vs. ACIT (TDS), KOCHI, KOCHI

ITA 463/COCH/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Dec 2022AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Smt. Krishna K., AdvFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 1Section 201Section 201(1)Section 220(2)Section 246A

delay with reasonable cause, we hold that the CIT(A) ought to have condoned the same followed by adequate opportunities for presenting it’s case(s) on merits. 6. Wereject the Revenue’s vehement contention supporting the CIT(A)’s reasoning therefore and restore these six quantum appeals ITA Nos. 461 to 446/Coch/2022 back

M/S NOORUL ISLAM TRUST,THODUPUZHA vs. ACIT (TDS), KOCHI, KOCHI

ITA 460/COCH/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Dec 2022AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Smt. Krishna K., AdvFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 1Section 201Section 201(1)Section 220(2)Section 246A

delay with reasonable cause, we hold that the CIT(A) ought to have condoned the same followed by adequate opportunities for presenting it’s case(s) on merits. 6. Wereject the Revenue’s vehement contention supporting the CIT(A)’s reasoning therefore and restore these six quantum appeals ITA Nos. 461 to 446/Coch/2022 back

M/S NOORUL ISLAM TRUST,THODUPUZHA vs. ACIT (TDS), KOCHI, KOCHI

ITA 466/COCH/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Dec 2022AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Smt. Krishna K., AdvFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 1Section 201Section 201(1)Section 220(2)Section 246A

delay with reasonable cause, we hold that the CIT(A) ought to have condoned the same followed by adequate opportunities for presenting it’s case(s) on merits. 6. Wereject the Revenue’s vehement contention supporting the CIT(A)’s reasoning therefore and restore these six quantum appeals ITA Nos. 461 to 446/Coch/2022 back

M/S NOORUL ISLAM TRUST,THODUPUZHA vs. ACIT (TDS), KOCHI, KOCHI

ITA 455/COCH/2022[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Dec 2022AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Smt. Krishna K., AdvFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 1Section 201Section 201(1)Section 220(2)Section 246A

delay with reasonable cause, we hold that the CIT(A) ought to have condoned the same followed by adequate opportunities for presenting it’s case(s) on merits. 6. Wereject the Revenue’s vehement contention supporting the CIT(A)’s reasoning therefore and restore these six quantum appeals ITA Nos. 461 to 446/Coch/2022 back

M/S NOORUL ISLAM TRUST,THODUPUZHA vs. ACIT (TDS), KOCHI, KOCHI

ITA 457/COCH/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Dec 2022AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Smt. Krishna K., AdvFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 1Section 201Section 201(1)Section 220(2)Section 246A

delay with reasonable cause, we hold that the CIT(A) ought to have condoned the same followed by adequate opportunities for presenting it’s case(s) on merits. 6. Wereject the Revenue’s vehement contention supporting the CIT(A)’s reasoning therefore and restore these six quantum appeals ITA Nos. 461 to 446/Coch/2022 back

M/S NOORUL ISLAM TRUST,THODUPUZHA vs. ACIT (TDS), KOCHI, KOCHI

ITA 465/COCH/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Dec 2022AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Smt. Krishna K., AdvFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 1Section 201Section 201(1)Section 220(2)Section 246A

delay with reasonable cause, we hold that the CIT(A) ought to have condoned the same followed by adequate opportunities for presenting it’s case(s) on merits. 6. Wereject the Revenue’s vehement contention supporting the CIT(A)’s reasoning therefore and restore these six quantum appeals ITA Nos. 461 to 446/Coch/2022 back

M/S NOORUL ISLAM TRUST,THODUPUZHA vs. ACIT (TDS), KOCHI, KOCHI

ITA 443/COCH/2022[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Dec 2022AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Smt. Krishna K., AdvFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 1Section 201Section 201(1)Section 220(2)Section 246A

delay with reasonable cause, we hold that the CIT(A) ought to have condoned the same followed by adequate opportunities for presenting it’s case(s) on merits. 6. Wereject the Revenue’s vehement contention supporting the CIT(A)’s reasoning therefore and restore these six quantum appeals ITA Nos. 461 to 446/Coch/2022 back

M/S NOORUL ISLAM TRUST,THODUPUZHA vs. ACIT (TDS), KOCHI, KOCHI

ITA 448/COCH/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Dec 2022AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Smt. Krishna K., AdvFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 1Section 201Section 201(1)Section 220(2)Section 246A

delay with reasonable cause, we hold that the CIT(A) ought to have condoned the same followed by adequate opportunities for presenting it’s case(s) on merits. 6. Wereject the Revenue’s vehement contention supporting the CIT(A)’s reasoning therefore and restore these six quantum appeals ITA Nos. 461 to 446/Coch/2022 back

M/S NOORUL ISLAM TRUST,THODUPUZHA vs. ACIT (TDS), KOCHI, KOCHI

ITA 451/COCH/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Dec 2022AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Smt. Krishna K., AdvFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 1Section 201Section 201(1)Section 220(2)Section 246A

delay with reasonable cause, we hold that the CIT(A) ought to have condoned the same followed by adequate opportunities for presenting it’s case(s) on merits. 6. Wereject the Revenue’s vehement contention supporting the CIT(A)’s reasoning therefore and restore these six quantum appeals ITA Nos. 461 to 446/Coch/2022 back

M/S NOORUL ISLAM TRUST,THODUPUZHA vs. ACIT (TDS), KOCHI, KOCHI

ITA 449/COCH/2022[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Dec 2022AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Smt. Krishna K., AdvFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 1Section 201Section 201(1)Section 220(2)Section 246A

delay with reasonable cause, we hold that the CIT(A) ought to have condoned the same followed by adequate opportunities for presenting it’s case(s) on merits. 6. Wereject the Revenue’s vehement contention supporting the CIT(A)’s reasoning therefore and restore these six quantum appeals ITA Nos. 461 to 446/Coch/2022 back

M/S NOORUL ISLAM TRUST,THODUPUZHA vs. ACIT (TDS), KOCHI, KOCHI

ITA 450/COCH/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Dec 2022AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Smt. Krishna K., AdvFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 1Section 201Section 201(1)Section 220(2)Section 246A

delay with reasonable cause, we hold that the CIT(A) ought to have condoned the same followed by adequate opportunities for presenting it’s case(s) on merits. 6. Wereject the Revenue’s vehement contention supporting the CIT(A)’s reasoning therefore and restore these six quantum appeals ITA Nos. 461 to 446/Coch/2022 back

M/S NOORUL ISLAM TRUST,THODUPUZHA vs. ACIT (TDS), KOCHI, KOCHI

ITA 444/COCH/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Dec 2022AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Smt. Krishna K., AdvFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 1Section 201Section 201(1)Section 220(2)Section 246A

delay with reasonable cause, we hold that the CIT(A) ought to have condoned the same followed by adequate opportunities for presenting it’s case(s) on merits. 6. Wereject the Revenue’s vehement contention supporting the CIT(A)’s reasoning therefore and restore these six quantum appeals ITA Nos. 461 to 446/Coch/2022 back