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.

518 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 7clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai3,583Mumbai3,465Delhi2,795Pune1,950Kolkata1,841Bangalore1,562Ahmedabad1,330Hyderabad1,293Jaipur929Patna691Chandigarh582Surat561Cochin518Visakhapatnam498Nagpur471Indore412Raipur401Lucknow354Amritsar346Cuttack288Karnataka285Rajkot283Panaji185Agra141Dehradun99Guwahati96Jodhpur95Calcutta82SC61Allahabad61Ranchi59Jabalpur53Telangana45Varanasi36Kerala22Orissa9Rajasthan9Andhra Pradesh8Himachal Pradesh5Punjab & Haryana4A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2Gauhati1DIPAK MISRA R.K. AGRAWAL PRAFULLA C. PANT1R.M. LODHA ANIL R. DAVE1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1VIKRAMAJIT SEN SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1

Key Topics

Section 80P49Section 143(3)42Condonation of Delay39Addition to Income36Section 234E33Deduction31Section 25029Section 19228Section 200

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)

7 SCC 556, wherein held as under: “In the absence of reasonable, satisfactory or even appropriate explanation for seeking condonation of delay, the same is not to be condoned lightly. It is further observed that the law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes

Showing 1–20 of 518 · Page 1 of 26

...
27
Section 206C27
Section 26326
TDS24

SRI.VARUGEHESE M. UTHUP,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE,, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 172/COCH/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2019AY 2015-16

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

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 249(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

7. The CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact that the assessment orders were passed ex parte u/s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and substantial injustice would be caused to the appellant if the delay is not condoned. When substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, the CIT(A) ought to have given preference

SRI VARGHESE M.UTHUP,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT,CEN-CIRCLE-2, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 161/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

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

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 249(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

7. The CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact that the assessment orders were passed ex parte u/s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and substantial injustice would be caused to the appellant if the delay is not condoned. When substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, the CIT(A) ought to have given preference

SRI.VARUGEHESE M. UTHUP,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE,, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 170/COCH/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

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

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 249(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

7. The CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact that the assessment orders were passed ex parte u/s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and substantial injustice would be caused to the appellant if the delay is not condoned. When substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, the CIT(A) ought to have given preference

SRI.VARUGEHESE M. UTHUP,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE,, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 164/COCH/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

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

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 249(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

7. The CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact that the assessment orders were passed ex parte u/s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and substantial injustice would be caused to the appellant if the delay is not condoned. When substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, the CIT(A) ought to have given preference

SRI.VARUGEHESE M. UTHUP,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE,, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 166/COCH/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2019AY 2015-16

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

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 249(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

7. The CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact that the assessment orders were passed ex parte u/s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and substantial injustice would be caused to the appellant if the delay is not condoned. When substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, the CIT(A) ought to have given preference

SRI.VARUGEHESE M. UTHUP,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE,, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 167/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

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

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 249(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

7. The CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact that the assessment orders were passed ex parte u/s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and substantial injustice would be caused to the appellant if the delay is not condoned. When substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, the CIT(A) ought to have given preference

SRI.VARUGEHESE M. UTHUP,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE,, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 171/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

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

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 249(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

7. The CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact that the assessment orders were passed ex parte u/s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and substantial injustice would be caused to the appellant if the delay is not condoned. When substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, the CIT(A) ought to have given preference

SRI.VARUGEHESE M. UTHUP,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE,, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 163/COCH/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

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

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 249(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

7. The CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact that the assessment orders were passed ex parte u/s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and substantial injustice would be caused to the appellant if the delay is not condoned. When substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, the CIT(A) ought to have given preference

SRI.VARUGEHESE M. UTHUP,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE,, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 169/COCH/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

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

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 249(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

7. The CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact that the assessment orders were passed ex parte u/s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and substantial injustice would be caused to the appellant if the delay is not condoned. When substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, the CIT(A) ought to have given preference

SRI.VARUGEHESE M. UTHUP,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE,, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 165/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

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

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 249(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

7. The CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact that the assessment orders were passed ex parte u/s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and substantial injustice would be caused to the appellant if the delay is not condoned. When substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, the CIT(A) ought to have given preference

SRI VARGHESE M.UTHUP,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT,CEN-CIRCLE-2, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 162/COCH/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

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

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 249(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

7. The CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact that the assessment orders were passed ex parte u/s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and substantial injustice would be caused to the appellant if the delay is not condoned. When substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, the CIT(A) ought to have given preference

SRI.VARUGEHESE M. UTHUP,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE,, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 168/COCH/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

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

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 249(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

7. The CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact that the assessment orders were passed ex parte u/s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and substantial injustice would be caused to the appellant if the delay is not condoned. When substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, the CIT(A) ought to have given preference

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

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 of 16 expression “sufficient cause” employed by the Legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice

M/S.KOSAMATTOM FINANCE P. LTD,KOTTAYAM vs. THE ACIT, KOTTAYAM, KOTTAYAM

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

ITA 600/COCH/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. T.M.SreedharanFor Respondent: Sri.Santham Bose
Section 143(3)Section 263

section 255(5) of the Act. He stated that the law is similarly concerned “sufficient cause” in matters relating to belated appeal. According to him, the length of the delay is not relevant and submitted that there is a sufficient cause for delay and this delay is of no fetter in condoning the delay and admitting the same in view

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

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

section 200A are so far as they are for the period prior to 1-6-2015 can be said as without any authority under law. Hence, the same can be said as illegal and invalid. [Para 23]" 4.6 The assessee has also relied on the decision of the ITAT Cochin Bench, in the case The Headmistress AV High School