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.

1,248 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 80Pclear

Sorted by relevance

Pune217Mumbai216Chennai160Cochin128Bangalore127Panaji62Kolkata45Ahmedabad36Hyderabad30Raipur29Jaipur28Delhi28Nagpur26Chandigarh20Visakhapatnam20Lucknow19Indore17Surat16Rajkot13Patna4Jabalpur2Jodhpur1Amritsar1Guwahati1Agra1SC1

Key Topics

Section 80P195Section 80P(2)(d)148Deduction89Section 143(1)73Section 80P(2)(a)70Section 143(3)65Condonation of Delay48Section 25040Section 139(1)37Addition to Income

GOLD COIN APARTMENTS CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 22(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3185/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vidyadhar KhandekarFor Respondent: Shri Asif Karmal
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. 4. We have heard both the sides on the issue and have perused the material on record. 5. The appeal preferred by the Assessee is delayed by 101 days. In the application seeking condonation

Showing 1–20 of 1,248 · Page 1 of 63

...
33
Section 15425
Disallowance22

ADIM JATI SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI MYDT JOBAT,ALIRAJPUR vs. FACELESS ASSESSMENT OFFICER, ALIRAJPUR

ITA 663/IND/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiadim Jati Sewa Sahkari Samiti National Faceless बनाम/ Mydt., Assessment Centre Vs. 01, Jobat, Jobat, Delhi Alirajpur (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaala0577E Assessee By Shri P.D. Nagar, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr

Section 143(3)Section 253(5)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

section 253(5) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 4. The assessee is a co-operative society engaged in business of providing credit facilities to its members. For AY 2020-21, the assessee filed return declaring total income of Rs. 40/-. In the return

M/S. THE BHAVASARA KSHATRIYA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,MYSURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), MYSURU

ITA 981/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jan 2024AY 2017-18
Section 143Section 234Section 80P

sections": [ "250", "234-A", "234-B", "270A", "143(3)", "80P", "80P(2)(a)(i)", "80P(2)(d)", "56", "263", "234A", "234B", "234C", "57" ], "issues": "1. Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned

AVINISSERY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,THRISSUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1),THRISSUR, THRISSUR

ITA 569/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Oct 2025AY 2016-17
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 5Section 80Section 80P

Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction, and the CIT(A) upheld this decision. The assessee appealed to the Tribunal. The appeals were filed with a delay, which the Tribunal condoned

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. M/S. BANGALORE CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result both the appeals of the Revenue as well as\nCos of the Assessee for the Asst

ITA 2347/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2025AY 2018-19
Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Section,\nthe fact remains that the petitioner has substantiated that\ninjustice is being done by not following the Division Bench\ndecision of this Court. Therefore, in order to do substantial\njustice, this Court exercising the power under Articles 226 and\n227 of the Constitution of India can condone the delay as held\nby the Division Bench of this Court

THE BALDUHAK CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE SERVICE SOCIETY LTD.,HAMIRPUR vs. ITO, WARD, HAMIRPUR

ITA 703/CHANDI/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Us Are That The Assessee Is A Cooperative

For Appellant: Shri Alok Krishan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

delay is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. In the present appeal, the assessee has challenged the action of the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi in sustaining the disallowance claimed by the assessee society under section 80P

EKTA SAHAKARI PATPEDHI MARYADIT,VIRAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ASSESSMENT UNIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the above appeals are allowed

ITA 105/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: \nShri Bhupendra Shah, ARFor Respondent: \nShri Manish Ajudiya (Sr. DR)
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

condoned.\n3. We have duly considered the issue and find some merit in the contentions. We have also gone through medical documents filed in support of the above submissions. However, it is equally true that there is substantial delay in both the years which also indicates some element of carelessness on part of the assessee who must have other persons

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)

80P (2)(a) on their income as held by the Apex Court in the case of Mavilayil Service Co-operative Bank Ltd For the reasons stated in the above and also the grounds urged at the time of final hearing, it is just and necessary to set aside the Annexure Al M/s. Paravur Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., Thiruvananthapuram Page

WEST CENTRAL RAILWAY EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), KOTA, KOTA

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 1007/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 80P

condoning the delay, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the matter in ITA No. 1007/JP/2025 for A.Y 2017-18 may be taken as the lead case for discussions, and on this aspect of the matter ld. DR has not raised any West Central Railway Employees Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. vs. ITO objection. Accepting this consensus, we proceed

DHANVARSHA NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA LIMITED,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 28(1)(3), NAVI MUMBAI

ITA 1599/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2024AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 40Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

delay of 22 days in filing the appeal on account of\nmedical issues faced by the chairman of the Appellant/Co-\noperative Society. Copy of medical reports were placed on record\nalong with affidavit filed with application seeking condonation of\ndelay. We are satisfied that the Appellant had sufficient cause for\nnot fling the appeal in time before the Tribunal. Therefore

DHANVARSHA NAGRI SAHAKARI PATASANTHA LIMITED,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 28(1)(3), NAVI MUMBAI

Accordingly, in view of paragraph 10 to 15 above, disallowance of INR.32,63,969/- is deleted and claim of deduction under Section 80P of the Act as made by the Appellant is allowed

ITA 1600/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: the Tribunal. Therefore, the delay of 22 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 4. We note that the Appellant has raised the following grounds in the

For Appellant: Shri Vijaykumar ShindeFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana
Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 40Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 3. There was delay of 22 days in filing the appeal on account of medical issues faced by the chairman of the Appellant/Co- operative Society. Copy of medical reports were placed on record along with affidavit filed with application seeking condonation of delay

SILVER SAND COOP HOUSING SOC LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1425/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blebuilding No. 12, Silver Sands Chs Ltd., Bangalore Post Bag No. 2 S.V. Road, Piramal Nagar Electronic City, Post Office Goregaon (W), Mumbai - 400062 Bangalore - 560100 Pan: Aadas5600G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 245Section 80P

condone the delay in filing the appeal. 2) On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) has erred in confirming the disallowance of deduction of Rs 2,56,358/- under section 80P

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

ITA 1054/BANG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2024AY 2013-14
Section 80PSection 80P(4)

delay in filing the above appeals before this\nTribunal stands condoned.\n5. The Ld.AR submitted that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) dated\n11.05.2023 impugned in ITA No.1054/Bang/2023 was signed at\n17.28 hours, while the order impugned in ITA No.\n1053/Bang/2023 was signed at 17.38 hours on the same day. It\nis submitted that both the orders are identical (except

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

ITA 1058/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2024AY 2017-18
For Appellant: \nShri K. Sheshadri, CA &For Respondent: \nShri D.K. Mishra, CIT – DR
Section 80PSection 80P(4)

delay in filing the above appeals before this\nTribunal stands condoned.\n\n5. The Ld.AR submitted that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) dated\n11.05.2023 impugned in ITA No.1054/Bang/2023 was signed at\n17.28 hours, while the order impugned in ITA No.\n1053/Bang/2023 was signed at 17.38 hours on the same day. It\nis submitted that both the orders are identical

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1) , BANGALORE

ITA 1055/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2024AY 2014-15
For Appellant: \nShri Bharadwaj SheshadriFor Respondent: \nShri D.K. Mishra, CIT – DR
Section 80PSection 80P(4)

delay in filing the above appeals before this\nTribunal stands condoned.\n5. The Ld.AR submitted that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) dated\n11.05.2023 impugned in ITA No.1054/Bang/2023 was signed at\n17.28 hours, while the order impugned in ITA No.\n1053/Bang/2023 was signed at 17.38 hours on the same day. It\nis submitted that both the orders are identical (except

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

ITA 1053/BANG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2024AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Bharadwaj SheshadriFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT – DR
Section 80PSection 80P(4)

delay in filing the above appeals before this\nTribunal stands condoned.\n5. The Ld.AR submitted that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) dated\n11.05.2023 impugned in ITA No.1054/Bang/2023 was signed at\n17.28 hours, while the order impugned in ITA No.\n1053/Bang/2023 was signed at 17.38 hours on the same day. It\nis submitted that both the orders are identical (except

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICE, WARD-5(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

ITA 1052/BANG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2024AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri K. Sheshadri, CA &For Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT – DR
Section 80PSection 80P(4)

delay in filing the above appeals before this\nTribunal stands condoned.\n5. The Ld.AR submitted that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) dated\n11.05.2023 impugned in ITA No.1054/Bang/2023 was signed at\n17.28 hours, while the order impugned in ITA No.\n1053/Bang/2023 was signed at 17.38 hours on the same day. It\nis submitted that both the orders are identical (except

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

ITA 1056/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2024AY 2015-16
For Appellant: \nShri K. Sheshadri, CA &For Respondent: \nShri D.K. Mishra, CIT – DR
Section 80PSection 80P(4)

delay in filing the above appeals before this\nTribunal stands condoned.\n5. The Ld.AR submitted that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) dated\n11.05.2023 impugned in ITA No.1054/Bang/2023 was signed at\n17.28 hours, while the order impugned in ITA No.\n1053/Bang/2023 was signed at 17.38 hours on the same day. It\nis submitted that both the orders are identical (except

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

ITA 1059/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2024AY 2018-19
For Appellant: \nShri K. Sheshadri, CA &For Respondent: \nShri D.K. Mishra, CIT – DR
Section 80PSection 80P(4)

delay in filing the above appeals before this\nTribunal stands condoned.\n5. The Ld.AR submitted that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) dated\n11.05.2023 impugned in ITA No.1054/Bang/2023 was signed at\n17.28 hours, while the order impugned in ITA No.\n1053/Bang/2023 was signed at 17.38 hours on the same day. It\nis submitted that both the orders are identical (except

CCI CHAMBERS CO-OP HSG SOC. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 17(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeal

ITA 3542/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Appellant: Mr. Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Prakash Jotwani

delay is condoned. The ground No. 1 raised in the appeal is accordingly allowed for statistical No. 1 raised in the appeal is accordingly allowed for statistical No. 1 raised in the appeal is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 4. As regards Ground No. 2, which concerns the merits of the As regards Ground No. 2, which concerns the merits