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.

78 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 80(5)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai570Chennai526Delhi399Kolkata312Pune275Bangalore254Ahmedabad215Hyderabad194Jaipur194Karnataka175Chandigarh170Visakhapatnam101Cochin78Indore69Amritsar64Lucknow57Surat46Panaji42Rajkot42Raipur40Calcutta37Cuttack35Guwahati31Nagpur25Patna21SC17Agra16Telangana13Allahabad12Jodhpur9Varanasi9Jabalpur8Dehradun7Ranchi5Orissa3Andhra Pradesh2Rajasthan2Himachal Pradesh1Kerala1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1

Key Topics

Section 80P79Section 143(3)56Section 26349Section 80P(2)(a)45Deduction36Condonation of Delay30Section 12A28Addition to Income27Section 250

EDAVILANGU SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO 3468,THRISSUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), THRISSUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 405/COCH/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Feb 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Smt. Leena Lal, Snr. ARFor Respondent: None
Section 2(1)Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

80(P), adopted on the basis of CBDT clarification No.133/06/2006-07 dated 19-052007 has to be considered by the authorities in the proper perspective. But, the authorities below under the statute proceeded the matter with pre-determined view and declined the benefit Page 11 of 15 ITA Nos. 405 & 406/Coch/2024 of Section 80P of the Act. Hence, assessment order

Showing 1–20 of 78 · Page 1 of 4

24
Section 13122
Section 1121
Exemption16

EDAVILANGU SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK NO 3468,THRISSUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), THRISSUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 406/COCH/2024[AY 2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Feb 2025

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Smt. Leena Lal, Snr. ARFor Respondent: None
Section 2(1)Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

80(P), adopted on the basis of CBDT clarification No.133/06/2006-07 dated 19-052007 has to be considered by the authorities in the proper perspective. But, the authorities below under the statute proceeded the matter with pre-determined view and declined the benefit Page 11 of 15 ITA Nos. 405 & 406/Coch/2024 of Section 80P of the Act. Hence, assessment order

THE ACIT,CIR-1(1),, TRIVANDRUM vs. M/S.US TECHNOLOGY INTERNATIONAL P. LTD, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, both appeal of the Revenue and the Cross Objection of the

ITA 514/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

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

Section 10ASection 10A(5)Section 253(2)

delay of 496 days in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals), Thiruvananthapuram, in so far as on the points mentioned below are con concerned, is opposed to law on the facts and circumstances

SRI BHUVANENDRA EDUCATION TRUST,KANHANGAD vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), KOCHI

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

ITA 352/COCH/2024[2024-2025]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Sept 2024AY 2024-2025

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Sri Bhuvanendra Education Trust Cit (Exemption) 2Nd/686, Gajanana Aayakar Bhaval Opp. Head Post Office Vs. Old Rly Station Road Hosdurg, Kanhangad 671315 Ernakulam 682018 [Pan: Aakts8046E] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K. Suresh Kumar Varma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 5Section 80Section 80GSection 80G(5)

5) of section 80 G of the Act. 17. Therefore, in this ambiguity situation in circular No. 8/2022 of CBDT dated 31-3-2022 and latest Circular No. 6/2023 dated 24-5-2023, of the CBDT, we do not have any option but to condone the delay

MRS. THANKAMANI VARADARAJULU,KOTTAYAM vs. THE DCIT,CEN-CIRCLE-2, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, appeals of the assesses are allowed

ITA 374/COCH/2019[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Sept 2019AY 2002-03

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

Section 271(1)

section 271(1) (c) of the Income Tax Act 1961. 5 I.T.A. Nos.374-380/Coch/2019 381 to 384/coch/2019 3.1 It was the case of the assessee that income from house properties was a pure accidental omission and the assessee was not in receipt of any rent for most parts of the year and at the time of filing the return, this fact

GAJANANA CHARITABLE TRUST,KANHANGAD vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), KOCHI

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

ITA 354/COCH/2024[2024-2025]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Sept 2024AY 2024-2025

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Gajanana Charitable Trust Cit (Exemption) 2Nd/686, Gajanana Aayakar Bhaval Opp. Head Post Office Vs. Old Rly Station Road Hosdurg, Kanhangad 671315 Ernakulam 682018 [Pan: Aabtg6555F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K. Suresh Kumar Varma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 80Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iv)

5) of section 80 G of the Act. 17. Therefore, in this ambiguity situation in circular No. 8/2022 of CBDT dated 31-3-2022 and latest Circular No. 6/2023 dated 24-5-2023, of the CBDT, we do not have any option but to condone the delay

KATTAPPANA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,IDUKKI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, THODUPUZHA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the stay application is dismissed

ITA 706/COCH/2023[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Jun 2024

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Anil D. Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ilaiyaraja K.S., Sr. D.R
Section 119(2)(b)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80P

80 P for the assessment years 2018 -19 to 2022-23. The CIT(A) directed the assessee to approach the proper authority for the condoning the delay in filing the return as per the circular issued by the CBDT. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before us. 3. At the time

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 ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKKODE, KOZHIKKODE vs. M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES, THRISSUR

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

ITA 375/COCH/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

Section 131Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

80 Taxmann.com 258. In addition, the assesses have consistently reiterated that the DVO's report suffers from the following grave factual infirmities: • The building has foundation in column footing and not raft footing. In raft footing the entire coverage of the building will be thick RCC slab whereas in column footing it is only columns erected on footings underneath each

THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKKODE, KOZHIKKODE vs. M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES, THRISSUR

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

ITA 379/COCH/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

Section 131Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

80 Taxmann.com 258. In addition, the assesses have consistently reiterated that the DVO's report suffers from the following grave factual infirmities: • The building has foundation in column footing and not raft footing. In raft footing the entire coverage of the building will be thick RCC slab whereas in column footing it is only columns erected on footings underneath each

M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES,TRICHUR vs. THE DCIT, CALICUT

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

ITA 496/COCH/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

Section 131Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

80 Taxmann.com 258. In addition, the assesses have consistently reiterated that the DVO's report suffers from the following grave factual infirmities: • The building has foundation in column footing and not raft footing. In raft footing the entire coverage of the building will be thick RCC slab whereas in column footing it is only columns erected on footings underneath each

THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKKODE, KOZHIKKODE vs. M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES, THRISSUR

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

ITA 374/COCH/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

Section 131Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

80 Taxmann.com 258. In addition, the assesses have consistently reiterated that the DVO's report suffers from the following grave factual infirmities: • The building has foundation in column footing and not raft footing. In raft footing the entire coverage of the building will be thick RCC slab whereas in column footing it is only columns erected on footings underneath each

THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKKODE, KOZHIKKODE vs. M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES, THRISSUR

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

ITA 376/COCH/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

Section 131Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

80 Taxmann.com 258. In addition, the assesses have consistently reiterated that the DVO's report suffers from the following grave factual infirmities: • The building has foundation in column footing and not raft footing. In raft footing the entire coverage of the building will be thick RCC slab whereas in column footing it is only columns erected on footings underneath each

M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES,TRICHUR vs. THE DCIT, CALICUT

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

ITA 497/COCH/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

Section 131Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

80 Taxmann.com 258. In addition, the assesses have consistently reiterated that the DVO's report suffers from the following grave factual infirmities: • The building has foundation in column footing and not raft footing. In raft footing the entire coverage of the building will be thick RCC slab whereas in column footing it is only columns erected on footings underneath each

THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKKODE, KOZHIKKODE vs. M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES, THRISSUR

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

ITA 377/COCH/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

Section 131Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

80 Taxmann.com 258. In addition, the assesses have consistently reiterated that the DVO's report suffers from the following grave factual infirmities: • The building has foundation in column footing and not raft footing. In raft footing the entire coverage of the building will be thick RCC slab whereas in column footing it is only columns erected on footings underneath each

THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKKODE, KOZHIKKODE vs. M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES, THRISSUR

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

ITA 378/COCH/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

Section 131Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

80 Taxmann.com 258. In addition, the assesses have consistently reiterated that the DVO's report suffers from the following grave factual infirmities: • The building has foundation in column footing and not raft footing. In raft footing the entire coverage of the building will be thick RCC slab whereas in column footing it is only columns erected on footings underneath each

M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES,TRICHUR vs. THE DCIT, CALICUT

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

ITA 499/COCH/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

Section 131Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

80 Taxmann.com 258. In addition, the assesses have consistently reiterated that the DVO's report suffers from the following grave factual infirmities: • The building has foundation in column footing and not raft footing. In raft footing the entire coverage of the building will be thick RCC slab whereas in column footing it is only columns erected on footings underneath each

M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES,TRICHUR vs. THE DCIT(, TRIVANDRUM

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

ITA 495/COCH/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

Section 131Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

80 Taxmann.com 258. In addition, the assesses have consistently reiterated that the DVO's report suffers from the following grave factual infirmities: • The building has foundation in column footing and not raft footing. In raft footing the entire coverage of the building will be thick RCC slab whereas in column footing it is only columns erected on footings underneath each

M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES,TRICHUR vs. THE DCIT, CALICUT

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

ITA 498/COCH/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

Section 131Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

80 Taxmann.com 258. In addition, the assesses have consistently reiterated that the DVO's report suffers from the following grave factual infirmities: • The building has foundation in column footing and not raft footing. In raft footing the entire coverage of the building will be thick RCC slab whereas in column footing it is only columns erected on footings underneath each