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.

440 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 6clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai3,998Mumbai3,819Delhi3,091Kolkata2,085Pune1,787Bangalore1,664Ahmedabad1,368Hyderabad1,176Jaipur875Patna741Surat615Chandigarh560Indore528Nagpur483Cochin440Raipur408Visakhapatnam381Lucknow366Rajkot319Amritsar313Karnataka296Cuttack277Panaji174Agra146Dehradun101Calcutta98Guwahati89Jodhpur80Jabalpur64SC62Allahabad61Ranchi59Telangana48Varanasi37Andhra Pradesh16Orissa10Rajasthan10Kerala7Punjab & Haryana6Himachal Pradesh5A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2Gauhati1R.M. LODHA ANIL R. DAVE1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1VIKRAMAJIT SEN SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1DIPAK MISRA R.K. AGRAWAL PRAFULLA C. PANT1

Key Topics

Section 234E85Section 80P46TDS42Section 200A41Section 143(3)32Deduction32Addition to Income27Condonation of Delay26Section 263

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)

Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act was not condonable. 25. This Court is, however, not inclined to entertain this Special Leave Petition since the Petitioners have failed to show sufficient cause for the condonation of the inordinate delay of 337 days in filing the Appeal in the High Court. Moreover, there are no grounds for interference with

Showing 1–20 of 440 · Page 1 of 22

...
24
Limitation/Time-bar24
Section 25020
Section 80P(2)(d)19

M/S KADIRUR SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,KANNUR vs. ITO WARD 2, KANNUR

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

ITA 104/COCH/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Kadirur Service Co- Operative Bank Ltd., The Income Tax Kadirur, Officer, Thalassery, Ward – 2, Kannur, Kannur. Kerala – 670 642. Vs. Pan: Aaffk6859E Appellant Respondent : Shri Arun Raj .S, Assessee By Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ilayaraja K.S, Sr. Dr

For Respondent: Shri Arun Raj .S
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 51Section 80p

condone delay by enacting section 51 of the Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on de merits". The Page 6

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,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

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

SAYEGH PAINT FACTORIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,ERNAKULAM vs. CORPORATE CIR 2(1), KOCHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the stay petition is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 451/COCH/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Snr.AR
Section 144B(6)(vii)Section 148Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

delay was condoned vide order dated 19.05.2023. However, prior to this, the case was taken up for scrutiny under Section 148 of the Act. 6

SABIR ALI,KANNUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GAZIABAD

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

ITA 201/COCH/2021[2013-2014]Status: HeardITAT Cochin20 May 2022AY 2013-2014

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

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

section 200A of the I.T.Act is prospective with effect from 01.06.2016. 7.1 As regards the condonation of delay is concerned, it is admitted that there is a delay of approximately five years in filing the appeals before the first appellate authority. The reasons stated for the delay is that – (a) The assessee was advised that there was no appeal remedy

SABIR ALI,KANNUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GHAZIABAD

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

ITA 200/COCH/2021[2013-2014]Status: HeardITAT Cochin20 May 2022AY 2013-2014

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

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

section 200A of the I.T.Act is prospective with effect from 01.06.2016. 7.1 As regards the condonation of delay is concerned, it is admitted that there is a delay of approximately five years in filing the appeals before the first appellate authority. The reasons stated for the delay is that – (a) The assessee was advised that there was no appeal remedy

SABIR ALI,KANNUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GHAZIABAD

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

ITA 203/COCH/2021[2014-2015]Status: HeardITAT Cochin20 May 2022AY 2014-2015

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

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

section 200A of the I.T.Act is prospective with effect from 01.06.2016. 7.1 As regards the condonation of delay is concerned, it is admitted that there is a delay of approximately five years in filing the appeals before the first appellate authority. The reasons stated for the delay is that – (a) The assessee was advised that there was no appeal remedy

SABIR ALI,KANNUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GHAZIABAD

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

ITA 202/COCH/2021[2013-2014]Status: HeardITAT Cochin20 May 2022AY 2013-2014

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

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

section 200A of the I.T.Act is prospective with effect from 01.06.2016. 7.1 As regards the condonation of delay is concerned, it is admitted that there is a delay of approximately five years in filing the appeals before the first appellate authority. The reasons stated for the delay is that – (a) The assessee was advised that there was no appeal remedy

SHOBHA RAMAKRISHNANA NAIR,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO, WARD 2, ALUVA

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

ITA 810/COCH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17 Shobha Ramakrishnan Nair Karthika Sebipuram Ito Ernakulam Ward-2 Vs. Manjapra So Aluva Kerala 683581 Pan No :Awrpr5406L Appellant Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 30.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.04.2025 O R D E R Per Keshav Dubey: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 22.12.2023 Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1059003947(1) For The Ay 2016- 17 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 250

6. The ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine by not condoning the delay of 5 months in filing the appeal as requested by the assessee in column 14 & 15 of form no. 35 filed on 28.09.2022 on the reasons that assessee has not shown any sufficient cause. 7. Aggrieved by the order

M/S BAYSHORE SEAWOOD PROJECTS,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO WARD 1(1), NON CORPORATE , RANGE 1, KOCHI

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

ITA 283/COCH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Bayshore Seawood Projects, The Income Tax 66/4952, Family Welfare Officer, Centre Bldg, Ward – 1(1), 2Nd Floor, Non-Corporate, M.G. Road, Range 1, Vs. Ernakulam – 682 035. Kochi. Pan: Aaifb4357R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Joyal George, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ilayaraja K.S, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Joyal George, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ilayaraja K.S, Sr. DR
Section 51

6 He thus prayed for the delay to be condoned. 5.2 On the contrary, the Ld.DR though objected however could not controvert the reasoning given by the Ld.AR for the delay that was caused in filing the present appeal. However, he opposed to the condoning of delay. We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in the light

DISTRICT LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY,TRIVANDRUM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- TDS, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes and the stay petitions are dismissed

ITA 868/COCH/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Shri Anil D. Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr.DR
Section 200ASection 234ESection 250

section 234E of the Act during the relevant period and the impugned proceedings were bad in law.” 7. The learned A.R. submitted that the Secretary (Sub Judge) of NALSA/ appellant had filed petition for condonation of delay before the CIT(A). The learned A.R. submitted that the proper authority to file the petition was the Chairman (District Judge

DISTRICT LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY,TRIVANDRUM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes and the stay petitions are dismissed

ITA 866/COCH/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Shri Anil D. Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr.DR
Section 200ASection 234ESection 250

section 234E of the Act during the relevant period and the impugned proceedings were bad in law.” 7. The learned A.R. submitted that the Secretary (Sub Judge) of NALSA/ appellant had filed petition for condonation of delay before the CIT(A). The learned A.R. submitted that the proper authority to file the petition was the Chairman (District Judge

DISTRICT LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY,TRIVANDRUM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - TDS, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes and the stay petitions are dismissed

ITA 867/COCH/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Shri Anil D. Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr.DR
Section 200ASection 234ESection 250

section 234E of the Act during the relevant period and the impugned proceedings were bad in law.” 7. The learned A.R. submitted that the Secretary (Sub Judge) of NALSA/ appellant had filed petition for condonation of delay before the CIT(A). The learned A.R. submitted that the proper authority to file the petition was the Chairman (District Judge

NEW HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,TRIVANDRUM vs. DCIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 55/COCH/2023[2015-16 QUARTER 4]Status: HeardITAT Cochin28 Aug 2023

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Sreeram Sekar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 200ASection 234E

section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on the processing of it’s tax returns, one each for the four quarters of fy 2014-15, u/s.200A of the Act, by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC), vide separate orders dated 21.9.2022. The appeals raising the same issue, were heard together, and are accordingly being disposed

NEW HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL ,TRIVANDRUM vs. DCIT , TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 54/COCH/2023[2015-16 (Qurt-3)]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Aug 2023

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Sreeram Sekar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 200ASection 234E

section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on the processing of it’s tax returns, one each for the four quarters of fy 2014-15, u/s.200A of the Act, by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC), vide separate orders dated 21.9.2022. The appeals raising the same issue, were heard together, and are accordingly being disposed

NEW HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL ,TRIVANDRUM vs. DCIT , TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 53/COCH/2023[2015-16 QTR 2]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Aug 2023

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Sreeram Sekar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 200ASection 234E

section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on the processing of it’s tax returns, one each for the four quarters of fy 2014-15, u/s.200A of the Act, by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC), vide separate orders dated 21.9.2022. The appeals raising the same issue, were heard together, and are accordingly being disposed

NEW HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,TRIVANDRUM vs. DCIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 52/COCH/2023[2015-16 (QT1)]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Aug 2023

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Sreeram Sekar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 200ASection 234E

section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on the processing of it’s tax returns, one each for the four quarters of fy 2014-15, u/s.200A of the Act, by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC), vide separate orders dated 21.9.2022. The appeals raising the same issue, were heard together, and are accordingly being disposed