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.

45 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 90(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai628Mumbai535Delhi386Kolkata338Bangalore218Hyderabad213Ahmedabad177Karnataka128Jaipur126Pune85Surat82Raipur77Chandigarh69Nagpur59Visakhapatnam59Indore56Amritsar53Lucknow49Cochin45Calcutta41Rajkot32Patna22SC19Cuttack18Allahabad14Jodhpur12Varanasi11Agra9Jabalpur8Guwahati7Telangana5Panaji4Dehradun4Ranchi3Andhra Pradesh2Rajasthan2Orissa1Himachal Pradesh1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1R.M. LODHA ANIL R. DAVE1

Key Topics

Addition to Income34Section 143(3)29Cash Deposit19Section 118Demonetization18Reassessment18Comparables/TP18Section 80P(2)(d)12Section 250

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)

2 Shri V.I. Georgekutty of the appeals by the assessee and condone the delay and dispose off the appeal on merits. 3. Shri T.M. Sreedharan, Advocate represented assessee and Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR appeared on behalf of the assessee. 4. The assessee has filed a written note dated 6th November, 2021 which is extracted as below: - “The above

Showing 1–20 of 45 · Page 1 of 3

11
Condonation of Delay10
Section 153C8
Section 153A8

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)

2 Shri V.I. Georgekutty of the appeals by the assessee and condone the delay and dispose off the appeal on merits. 3. Shri T.M. Sreedharan, Advocate represented assessee and Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR appeared on behalf of the assessee. 4. The assessee has filed a written note dated 6th November, 2021 which is extracted as below: - “The above

M/S SANTHIMADOM AYURNIKETHAN HEALTH RESORT & RESEARCH INSTITUTE TRUST,KOCHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 918/COCH/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 May 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 153ASection 153CSection 234A

condoning the delay, admit the appeal for being decided on merits. 3. It was, at the outset, submitted by Shri Joseph, the learned counsel for the assessee, that only the grounds of appeal in relation to levy of interest u/ss. 234A and 234B of the Act are being pressed. And toward which he would take us through the appeal memo

M/S SANTHIMADOM AYURNIKETHAN HEALTH RESORT & RESEARCH INSTITUTE TRUST,KOCHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 919/COCH/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 153ASection 153CSection 234A

condoning the delay, admit the appeal for being decided on merits. 3. It was, at the outset, submitted by Shri Joseph, the learned counsel for the assessee, that only the grounds of appeal in relation to levy of interest u/ss. 234A and 234B of the Act are being pressed. And toward which he would take us through the appeal memo

M/S SANTHIMADOM AYURNIKETHAN HEALTH RESORT & RESEARCH INSTITUTE TRUST,KOCHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 917/COCH/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 May 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 153ASection 153CSection 234A

condoning the delay, admit the appeal for being decided on merits. 3. It was, at the outset, submitted by Shri Joseph, the learned counsel for the assessee, that only the grounds of appeal in relation to levy of interest u/ss. 234A and 234B of the Act are being pressed. And toward which he would take us through the appeal memo

M/S SANTHIMADOM AYURNIKETHAN HEALTH RESORT & RESEARCH INSTITUTE TRUST,ERNAKULAM vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 916/COCH/2022[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 May 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 153ASection 153CSection 234A

condoning the delay, admit the appeal for being decided on merits. 3. It was, at the outset, submitted by Shri Joseph, the learned counsel for the assessee, that only the grounds of appeal in relation to levy of interest u/ss. 234A and 234B of the Act are being pressed. And toward which he would take us through the appeal memo

M/S.VIJAYA HOSPITALITY AND RESORTS LTD,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ADCIT(TDS), COCHIN

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

ITA 96/COCH/2015[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Cochin24 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Sri.Thomas Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamunna Devi, Sr.DR
Section 271CSection 273Section 273B

condone the delay in filing this appeal and proceed to dispose of this appeal on merits. 3. The solitary issue raised is whether the CIT(A) is justified in confirming the Assessing Officer’s order, wherein penalty 2 ITA No.96/Coch/2015. M/s.Vijaya Hospitality and Resorts Limited. has been imposed u/s 271C of the I.T.Act amounting to Rs.9

M/S SANTHIMADOM HERBAL CITY TRUST,ERNAKULAM vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 920/COCH/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Nov 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamuna Devi, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 153C

condonation of delay, admit the instant appeals. Hearing was accordingly proceeded with. ITA Nos.920-921/Coch/2022 (AYs. 2008-09 & 2009-10) Santhimadom Herbal City Trust v. Asst. CIT 3. The assessee is a private trust formed on 01.01.2007 (02/11/2004, as per the impugned order) with the object of construction of a herbal city, apartments/villas, etc. for the promotion of herbal treatment, herbal

M/S SANTHIMADOM HERBAL CITY TRUST,ERNAKULAM vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 921/COCH/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamuna Devi, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 153C

condonation of delay, admit the instant appeals. Hearing was accordingly proceeded with. ITA Nos.920-921/Coch/2022 (AYs. 2008-09 & 2009-10) Santhimadom Herbal City Trust v. Asst. CIT 3. The assessee is a private trust formed on 01.01.2007 (02/11/2004, as per the impugned order) with the object of construction of a herbal city, apartments/villas, etc. for the promotion of herbal treatment, herbal

NEW COCHIN REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS,KOCHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, KOCHI

The appeal is dismissed both on the grounds of delay and latches and also as defective appeal

ITA 924/COCH/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Mar 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

For Appellant: Shri K. Kittu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a partnership firm engaged in the business of real estate. No return of income under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was filed by the assessee. The AO conducted survey operations u/s. 133A of the Act, wherein certain incriminating material

NEW COCHIN REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS,KOCHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, KOCHI

The appeal is dismissed both on the grounds of delay and latches and also as defective appeal

ITA 925/COCH/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Mar 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

For Appellant: Shri K. Kittu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a partnership firm engaged in the business of real estate. No return of income under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was filed by the assessee. The AO conducted survey operations u/s. 133A of the Act, wherein certain incriminating material

SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD R-83,ALUVA, ERNAKULAM vs. ITO, WARD 2, ALUVA

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

ITA 505/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act') of Rs. 1,11,90,708/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the ITO, Ward-2, Aluva (for short, 'AO') vide order dated 29/12/2019 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act at a total income of Rs. 1,11,90,708/-. While

SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD R-83,ALUVA vs. ITO, WARD 2, ALUVA

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

ITA 506/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act') of Rs. 1,11,90,708/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the ITO, Ward-2, Aluva (for short, 'AO') vide order dated 29/12/2019 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act at a total income of Rs. 1,11,90,708/-. While

SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED R-83,ALUVA, ERNAKULAM vs. ITO WARD 2, ALUVA

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

ITA 504/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act') of Rs. 1,11,90,708/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the ITO, Ward-2, Aluva (for short, 'AO') vide order dated 29/12/2019 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act at a total income of Rs. 1,11,90,708/-. While

NMG BANK EMPLOYEES CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY,KANNUR vs. THE ITO, , KANNUR

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 119/COCH/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, J.M & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, A.M

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt.J.M. Jamuna Devi (Addl.CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

delay of 52 days in the appeal which stand condoned since the impugned order was passed during lockdown situation arising out of Covid-19 Pandemic. The facts as well as issues are stated to be identical in both the years. 2. Upon perusal of assessment order for 2016-17, it could be seen that the assessee earned interest income

NMG BANK EMPLOYEES CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY,KANNUR vs. THE ITO, KANNUR

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 120/COCH/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, J.M & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, A.M

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt.J.M. Jamuna Devi (Addl.CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

delay of 52 days in the appeal which stand condoned since the impugned order was passed during lockdown situation arising out of Covid-19 Pandemic. The facts as well as issues are stated to be identical in both the years. 2. Upon perusal of assessment order for 2016-17, it could be seen that the assessee earned interest income

AJIT ASSOCIATES PRIVATE LIMITED,ERNAKULAM vs. JCIT, CORPORATE RANGE - 1, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 870/COCH/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Aug 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shriabyt.Varkey, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.A.Gopalakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamuna Devi, Sr.AR
Section 133ASection 147Section 148

section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’) dated 18.3.2015 and 29.3.2014 for assessment year (AY) 2007-2008, respectively. The background facts of both the cases being same, these are heard together, and are being disposed of pera common, consolidated order for the sake of convenience. ITA Nos.870& 884 /Coch/2022 (AY 2007-08) Ajit

GOOD HOMES PVT LTD,KOCHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 884/COCH/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Aug 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shriabyt.Varkey, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.A.Gopalakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamuna Devi, Sr.AR
Section 133ASection 147Section 148

section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’) dated 18.3.2015 and 29.3.2014 for assessment year (AY) 2007-2008, respectively. The background facts of both the cases being same, these are heard together, and are being disposed of pera common, consolidated order for the sake of convenience. ITA Nos.870& 884 /Coch/2022 (AY 2007-08) Ajit

SUD CHEMIE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,ALUVA vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), ERNAKULAM

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

ITA 970/COCH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Sri.Radhesh Bhatt, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR
Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

condone the delay of 21 days and proceed to dispose of the same on merits. 3. The grounds raised read as follows: “1. The order passed by the learned Commissioner of Appeals (CIT-A), NFAC to the extent appealed against is against law, equity and justice. 2. The Learned CIT -A grossly erred in partially confirming the disallowance u/s.14A, r.w.r

SONIYA DAVID LATHIKA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ITO WARD 2(3), TRIVANDRUM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

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

ITA 667/COCH/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Jun 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Soniya David Lathika The Ito, Ward-2(3) S. S. Nivas, Vizhinjam, Aayakar Bhavan, Kowdiar, Vs. Mukkola, Venganoor, Trivandrum-4 Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala Pan/Gir No. Ajqpl 8228 A (Assessee) : (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Adarsh BFor Respondent: 13.03.2024
Section 10(37)Section 250

Delay condoned. 3. The assessee had filed the following grounds of appeal: 2 Soniya David Lathika vs. ITO 1. The order of the learned Assessing officer is against law, facts and circumstances of the case 2. The Officer erred in fixing long term capital gain at Rs 99,39,969 as against Nil claimed by the appellant. The appellant