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.

36 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 83clear

Sorted by relevance

Patna490Mumbai410Chennai405Delhi391Kolkata287Bangalore170Hyderabad163Ahmedabad129Karnataka124Pune119Chandigarh114Jaipur108Nagpur100Indore68Surat63Rajkot53Calcutta41Lucknow39Cuttack38Cochin36Panaji36Amritsar26Raipur19Visakhapatnam13Agra13Guwahati12SC11Varanasi6Telangana5Jabalpur5Jodhpur3Allahabad3Ranchi3Orissa2Andhra Pradesh2Rajasthan1Punjab & Haryana1Himachal Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 234E79Section 200A58Section 80P17Limitation/Time-bar17Condonation of Delay15TDS13Section 80P(2)(d)12Section 25010Section 271D

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

83 taxmann.com 137 (Gujarat), for deciding the issue on merits, against the assessee. 5. Aggrieved by the orders of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed these appeals before the Tribunal. The learned AR, as regards the condonation of delay, relied on the submissions made before the CIT(A). As regards the issue on merits, the learned AR submitted that

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

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

Showing 1–20 of 36 · Page 1 of 2

10
Deduction10
Addition to Income9
Section 1488
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

83 taxmann.com 137 (Gujarat), for deciding the issue on merits, against the assessee. 5. Aggrieved by the orders of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed these appeals before the Tribunal. The learned AR, as regards the condonation of delay, relied on the submissions made before the CIT(A). As regards the issue on merits, the learned AR submitted that

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

83 taxmann.com 137 (Gujarat), for deciding the issue on merits, against the assessee. 5. Aggrieved by the orders of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed these appeals before the Tribunal. The learned AR, as regards the condonation of delay, relied on the submissions made before the CIT(A). As regards the issue on merits, the learned AR submitted that

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

83 taxmann.com 137 (Gujarat), for deciding the issue on merits, against the assessee. 5. Aggrieved by the orders of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed these appeals before the Tribunal. The learned AR, as regards the condonation of delay, relied on the submissions made before the CIT(A). As regards the issue on merits, the learned AR submitted that

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

SAVE A FAMILY PLAN (INDIA),,KANJOOR vs. DCIT(EXEMPTION), KOCHI

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

ITA 138/COCH/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Save A Family Plan (India) Dy. Cit, Exemption Aiswaryagram, Parappuram San Juan Towers, 2Nd Floor Vs. Kanjoor - 683575 Old Railway Station Road [Pan:Aabts9439E] Kochi 682018 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Abraham J. Markose, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 260ASection 263

delay in filing appeal stands condoned by the order passed by Third Member. We now proceed to dwell into the merits of the order passed u/s. 263 of the Act. 8. The learned counsel for the assessee submits that the appellant is a charitable trust registered u/s. 12A of the Act and also enjoying registration under FCRA. The appellant trust

SRI.V.I. GEORGE KUTTY,KOLLAM vs. THE ITO,, KOLLAM

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

ITA 107/COCH/2021[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Nov 2021AY 2004-05

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

For Appellant: Shri T.M. Sreedharan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

83,143/- under 'Sections 234A and 234B. These assessment orders have acquired finality since no appeal has been filed. 4. The appeals filed by the assessee are belated. The petition for Condonation of delay

SRI.V.I. GEORGE KUTTY,KOLLAM vs. THE ITO,, KOLLAM

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

ITA 106/COCH/2021[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Nov 2021AY 2003-04

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

For Appellant: Shri T.M. Sreedharan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

83,143/- under 'Sections 234A and 234B. These assessment orders have acquired finality since no appeal has been filed. 4. The appeals filed by the assessee are belated. The petition for Condonation of delay

GOVERNMENT MENTAL HOSPITAL,KUTHIRAVATTAM vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC (TDS), KOZHIKODE

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

ITA 277/COCH/2021[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Jun 2022AY 2015-2016

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

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

condoning the delay; (ii) whether the CIT(A) was justified in confirming the late fees levied u/s 234E of the I.T.Act. 5. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The assessee is a Mental Health Institution run by the Government of Kerala. There was a delay in filing statement of TDS for various quarters for the financial years

GOVERNMENT MENTAL HOSPITAL,KUTHIRAVATTAM vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC (TDS), KOZHIKODE

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

ITA 278/COCH/2021[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Jun 2022AY 2013-2014

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

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

condoning the delay; (ii) whether the CIT(A) was justified in confirming the late fees levied u/s 234E of the I.T.Act. 5. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The assessee is a Mental Health Institution run by the Government of Kerala. There was a delay in filing statement of TDS for various quarters for the financial years

GOVERNMENT MENTAL HOSPITAL,KUTHIRAVATTAM vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC (TDS), KOZHIKODE

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

ITA 275/COCH/2021[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Jun 2022AY 2013-2014

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

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

condoning the delay; (ii) whether the CIT(A) was justified in confirming the late fees levied u/s 234E of the I.T.Act. 5. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The assessee is a Mental Health Institution run by the Government of Kerala. There was a delay in filing statement of TDS for various quarters for the financial years

GOVERNMENT MENTAL HOSPITAL,KUTHIRAVATTAM vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC (TDS),, KOZHIKODE

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

ITA 276/COCH/2021[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Jun 2022AY 2013-2014

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

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

condoning the delay; (ii) whether the CIT(A) was justified in confirming the late fees levied u/s 234E of the I.T.Act. 5. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The assessee is a Mental Health Institution run by the Government of Kerala. There was a delay in filing statement of TDS for various quarters for the financial years

P. SURENDRAN,TRIVANDRUM vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(2), TRIVANDRUM

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

ITA 978/COCH/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm P. Surendran Sukanya Bhavan Asst. Cit-1(2) Vadayakkadu, Kunnukuzhy, P.O., Thiruvananthapuram Vs. Thiruvananthapuram-695 035

For Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 40A(3)Section 40a

Delay condoned. 4. The brief facts are that the assessee is an individual and had filed his return of income on 30.11.2014, declaring total income at Rs.1,75,34,220/-. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were duly issued and served upon by the assessee

INDITRADE BUSINESS CONSULTANTS LIMITED,ERNAKULAM vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), KOCHI

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

ITA 655/COCH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Sri.Aneesh Vishwanthan, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 250Section 69C

condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits. 3. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: – “1. Incorrect addition made under section 69C of the Income tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") in relation to purchases made totalling to Rs. 3,34,87,077. 1.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income

INDIRA GANDHI MEMORIAL TRUST,NELLIKUZHY, KOTHAMANGALAM vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION), ERNAKULAM

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

ITA 54/COCH/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Sri.P.T.Joy, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 269SSection 271D

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a trust registered under the provisions of the Act and run various educational institutions. During the assessment year 2012- 2013, the assessment was made without any additions to the income returned by the assessee. On going through the documents

INDIRA GANDHI MEMORIAL TRUST,NELLIKUZHY P.O vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), ERNAKULAM

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

ITA 165/COCH/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Sri.P.T.Joy, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 269SSection 271D

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a trust registered under the provisions of the Act and run various educational institutions. During the assessment year 2012- 2013, the assessment was made without any additions to the income returned by the assessee. On going through the documents

KUNCHARAVILA EDUCATIONAL TRUST,KOLLAM vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

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

ITA 124/COCH/2021[2015-16 (26Q2)]Status: HeardITAT Cochin20 May 2022

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

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

condoned the delay of filing the appeals before him. However, the CIT(A) confirmed the A.O.’s orders for levying fees u/s 234E of the I.T.Act. The CIT(A) relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Sree Narayana Guru Smaraka Sangam Upper Primary School v. Union of India and Others reported

KUNCHARAVILA EDUCATIONAL TRUST,PARAVUR,KOLLAM vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

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

ITA 121/COCH/2021[2014-14(26Q3)]Status: HeardITAT Cochin20 May 2022

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

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

condoned the delay of filing the appeals before him. However, the CIT(A) confirmed the A.O.’s orders for levying fees u/s 234E of the I.T.Act. The CIT(A) relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Sree Narayana Guru Smaraka Sangam Upper Primary School v. Union of India and Others reported

KUNCHARAVILA EDUCATIONAL TRUST,KOLLAM vs. ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

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

ITA 122/COCH/2021[2014-15 (26Q4)]Status: HeardITAT Cochin20 May 2022

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

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

condoned the delay of filing the appeals before him. However, the CIT(A) confirmed the A.O.’s orders for levying fees u/s 234E of the I.T.Act. The CIT(A) relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Sree Narayana Guru Smaraka Sangam Upper Primary School v. Union of India and Others reported