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.

6 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 96clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai534Mumbai355Delhi251Kolkata214Bangalore174Karnataka126Ahmedabad110Hyderabad108Chandigarh82Pune79Jaipur75Visakhapatnam50Amritsar46Calcutta39Indore39Surat36Panaji35Nagpur28Raipur22Patna18Lucknow14Rajkot13Allahabad11SC10Cuttack10Jodhpur9Telangana9Agra9Dehradun7Guwahati7Varanasi6Cochin6Jabalpur6Rajasthan5Orissa2Ranchi2Himachal Pradesh1Gauhati1Andhra Pradesh1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 1546Section 80P6Section 804Section 139(1)4Section 1484Section 271(1)(c)4Section 2503Section 143(3)3Condonation of Delay

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

THRISSUR DISTRICT POLICE CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THRISSUR

3
Limitation/Time-bar2
Rectification u/s 1542
Deduction2

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

CHRISTUDANAM YASSAYA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

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

ITA 840/COCH/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2011-12 Christudanam Yassaya .......... Appellant Bathel Kp 17A Maruthoor, Vattapara P.O. Thiruvananthapuram 695028 [Pan: Acmpy4412C] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1) .......... Respondent Aayakar Bhavan, Kowdiar Thiruvananthapuram 695003

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 142Section 144Section 148Section 264Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

96,672/- vide order dated 27.09.2021. 4. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the levy of penalty. 5. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. 6. At the outset, I find that there is delay of 9 days in filing the present appeal

MAHE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,KOZHIKODE vs. ITO,WARD-1 & TPS, KANNUR

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

ITA 1062/COCH/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Apr 2025AY 2022-23

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

For Appellant: Sri.Arun Raj S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

condone the delay in filing this appeal and proceed to dispose of the same on merits. 3. The grounds raised read as follows:- “1. The order dated 3-10-2024 passed by the CIT(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi confirming the order dated 5-3-2024 of the National e-Assessment Centre, Delhi

DCIT, TRIVANDRUM vs. BRAHMOS AEROSPACE( THIRUVANANTHAPURAM) LTD, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal filedby

ITA 742/COCH/2019[2002-03]Status: HeardITAT Cochin23 Feb 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ramit Kochar, Am Deputy Commissioner Brahmos Aerospace Of Income Tax, (Thiruvananthapuram) Ltd., Circle-1(1), V. Chackai, Thiruvananthapuram Beach Post, Kerala Tiruvananthapuram, Kerala Pan – Aabck2217K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Smt. Jamunna Devi, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Abraham Joseph Markos, Adv
Section 139(1)Section 139(3)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 80

96,55,033/-. The said return of income was accompanied with the provisional financial statements , as the audited accounts were not available by that time nor tax-audit report was filed while filing of return of income. It is an admitted position that the assessee’saccounts were audited by the statutory auditory on 5th February 2003 which was much later

HASEENA MEHBOOB,CALICUT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1), KOZHIKODE

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

ITA 954/COCH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri G. Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 68

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 6. The learned counsel for the assessee submits that the CIT(A) grossly erred in estimating the agricultural income at 125% of agricultural income for the immediately preceding year without appreciating the facts of the case in the proper perspective. He further submits that the appellant had submitted bills in respect