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.

42 results for “capital gains”+ Condonation of Delayclear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai660Mumbai651Kolkata384Delhi356Ahmedabad272Hyderabad271Bangalore262Jaipur216Pune200Chandigarh141Visakhapatnam111Karnataka105Indore103Surat87Calcutta76Panaji65Lucknow65Nagpur54Cuttack42Cochin42Patna41Rajkot31Agra31Raipur25Amritsar23Jodhpur15SC13Jabalpur13Varanasi10Allahabad9Ranchi9Dehradun8Guwahati7Telangana5Andhra Pradesh1Orissa1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)26Addition to Income25Capital Gains24Condonation of Delay16Section 14815Long Term Capital Gains14Section 25010Section 2639Section 2649Limitation/Time-bar

SRI. MAMMEN ADENETH PAPPY,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ITO,, THIRUVALLA

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

ITA 498/COCH/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

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

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 54F

condone the delay of 38 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 5. Now coming to the issue raised by the assessee, the facts are that in the return of income filed, the assessee claimed deduction u/s. 54F of the Act on the capital gain

SAHADEVAN K ,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, WD-1(3), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 116/COCH/2019[2010-11]Status: Disposed

Showing 1–20 of 42 · Page 1 of 3

9
Section 1478
Section 54F8
ITAT Cochin
04 Nov 2019
AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Sri.Mathew JosephFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 10(37)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

condonation of delay and also an affidavit stating therein the reasons for not filing the appeal on time. The relevant portion of the affidavit filed by the assessee reads as follow:- “Shri. Sahadevan. K. Son of G. Krishnan aged 77 residing at Rohini, Aksharaveedhi lane, Pettah, Trivandrum do hereby solemnly affirm that; 1. I am assessed

SAHADEVAN K ,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, WD-1(3), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 464/COCH/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Sri.Mathew JosephFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 10(37)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

condonation of delay and also an affidavit stating therein the reasons for not filing the appeal on time. The relevant portion of the affidavit filed by the assessee reads as follow:- “Shri. Sahadevan. K. Son of G. Krishnan aged 77 residing at Rohini, Aksharaveedhi lane, Pettah, Trivandrum do hereby solemnly affirm that; 1. I am assessed

JOYCE JOY,ERNAKULAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , ALUVA

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

ITA 816/COCH/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Jun 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Smt. Parvathy Ammal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Snr. AR

capital gain provision would not be applicable. The Ld.CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal on the ground that the assessee had not produced any details regarding the sale of agricultural produce and no agricultural income was reported during the earlier years. 6. As against the said order, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 7. The appeal was filed

LAURA ANN,SINGAPORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION,TRIVANDRUM, TRIVANDRUM

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

ITA 262/COCH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CA

capital gains. As against the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) with a delay of 39 days but not filed any application to condone

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTTAYAM vs. THOMAS CHANDY, KANJIRAPALLY

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 243/COCH/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2012-13 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax .......... Appellant Public Library Buiulding, Shastri Road Kottayam 686001 [Pan: Adzpc3009P] Vs. Thomas Chandy .......... Respondent Karimpanal Post, Post Box No. Vizhikithode, Kanjirpally 686507 Appellant By: Smt. Veni Raj, Cit-Dr Respondent By: Shri R. Krishnan, Ca Date Of Hearing: 12.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2025

For Appellant: Smt. Veni Raj, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri R. Krishnan, CA
Section 148Section 2(47)

capital gain does not arise. It is further submitted that the joint development agreement entered into by the appellant with the developer was not registered. Only the power of attorney was registered. Therefore, the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court is squarely applicable. 7. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR submits that

SRI.AJU ABDURAHIMAN,CALICUT vs. THE ITO, CALICUT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 401/COCH/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

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

Section 144Section 148

condone the delay of 423 days and admit the appeals for adjudication. 4. The only ground raised by the assessee in ITA No. 400/Coch/2015 is with regard to the sustenance of addition of Rs.23,42,600/- unexplained investment in the bank accounts. 5. The facts of the case are that the there was information with the Assessing Officer that

SRI.AJU ABDURAHIMAN,CALICUT vs. THE ITO, CALICUT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 400/COCH/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

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

Section 144Section 148

condone the delay of 423 days and admit the appeals for adjudication. 4. The only ground raised by the assessee in ITA No. 400/Coch/2015 is with regard to the sustenance of addition of Rs.23,42,600/- unexplained investment in the bank accounts. 5. The facts of the case are that the there was information with the Assessing Officer that

BENEESH KUMAR,KOCHI vs. ITO, NON CORP WARD 1(1), KOCHI

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

ITA 1161/COCH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 Beneesh Kumar .......... Appellant Madathuparambu House, Thattzham Road Vaduthala, Kochi 682023 [Pan: Agipb7548Q] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Non-Corporate Ward, Kochi Appellant By: Shri Ramesh Cherian, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Omanakutan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 19.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.04.2025

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh Cherian, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Omanakutan, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 282(1)Section 54Section 54F

capital gains returned by the appellant of Rs. 57,28,310/-, however denied the claim of deduction u/s. 54F as the appellant had allegedly failed to adduce proof in support of the claim made. 4. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. 5. Being aggrieved

PALAKKAL KRISHNANKUTTY RAGHAVAN,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GURUVAYOOR

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

ITA 740/COCH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: None
Section 144Section 148Section 270ASection 69A

condoning the delay of 150 days in filing the appeal and the same was not on merits. C. The Appellate Authority failed to appreciate that the levy of 200% of the tax as penalty under Sec.270A was highly exaggerated. During the course of appeal, the Appellant had produced documents to substantiate that the quantum assessment would not be sustained

PALAKKAL KRISHNANKUTTY RAGHAVAN,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GURUVAYOOR

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

ITA 741/COCH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: None
Section 144Section 148Section 270ASection 69A

condoning the delay of 150 days in filing the appeal and the same was not on merits. C. The Appellate Authority failed to appreciate that the levy of 200% of the tax as penalty under Sec.270A was highly exaggerated. During the course of appeal, the Appellant had produced documents to substantiate that the quantum assessment would not be sustained

SITARAM THRIKKUR SUBBARAMAN,THRISSUR vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), THRISSUR

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

ITA 398/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sitaram Thrikkur Subbaraman .......... Appellant Xxxi 289 Lakshmi Nivas, Pushpagiri Thrissur - 680002 [Pan: Aiops8626E] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Wd-2(1), Thrissur .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Jai Krishna, Advocate Respondent By: Smt. Veni Raj, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2025

For Appellant: Shri Jai Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Veni Raj, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 69A

capital gains, it is submitted that the properties were sold in order to pay the debts of the firm and the share of the appellant in the property was only 2%. However, the AO rejected the above explanation and made addition of Rs. 14,86,25,000/-, 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide

KUNJUMOL,TRIVANDRUM vs. ITO, TRIVANDRUM

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

ITA 266/COCH/2024[AY 2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Nov 2024

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

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139Section 144BSection 148BSection 194I

capital gains on sale of immovable property. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was file before the CIT(A) with a delay of 122 days. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine without condoning

THE ITO, COCHIN vs. SRI.AMBADY KRISHNA MENON, COCHIN

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection filed

ITA 4/COCH/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

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

Section 139(1)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

condone the delay of four days and admit the appeal. 2.3 The assessee has raised the following grounds in its Cross Objection: The additional income of Capital Gains

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

condone the delay,and admit the appeal. Ajit Associates (P.) Ltd. (AAPL) 3. The assessee-company, in the business of real estate development, purchased lands in an Island along with two group companies, i.e., Beaver Estate Private Limited (BEPL) and Good Homes Private Limited (GHPL), with a view to develop the Island as per the master plan, and sell

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

condone the delay,and admit the appeal. Ajit Associates (P.) Ltd. (AAPL) 3. The assessee-company, in the business of real estate development, purchased lands in an Island along with two group companies, i.e., Beaver Estate Private Limited (BEPL) and Good Homes Private Limited (GHPL), with a view to develop the Island as per the master plan, and sell

CLINT MARTEL WILFRED,ERNAKULAM vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE, KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 206/COCH/2021[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Dec 2022AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Saroj Kumar Parida, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR
Section 143(2)Section 154Section 50C

capital gain taking the sale consideration as per the Deed i.e., Rs.1,01,40,000. The assessee contended before the AO that difference of Rs.21,54,000 cannot be brought under the tax net as the property was sold to Corporation of Cochin and there is no scope of unaccounted money. The assessee further submitted that the provisions of section

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

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)

capital gain on sale of property at Rs. 32,42,980/-. On the above addition the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. This assessment order was passed u/s. 144 r.w.s. 264 on 29.11.2019 at a total income of Rs. 38,32,110/-. 3. The appellant, in response to the show cause notice

NARIKKOLIL HAMEED,KOZHIKODE vs. ACIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, KOCHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 200/COCH/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Assessment Year: 2010-11 Narikkolil Hameed .......... Appellant Narikolil House, Kummankode P.O. Nadapuram, Calicut 673504 [Pan: Aaqph1056H] Vs. Ddit (International Taxation) .......... Respondent Kochi Appellant By: Smt. Parvathy Ammal, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.03.2025

For Appellant: Smt. Parvathy Ammal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)

capital gain after allowing brokerage expenditure of Rs. 1,67,500/- and the balance amount was confirmed by the CIT(A). 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. 5. At the outset we find that there is a delay of 37 days in filing the present appeal. The appellant filed a condonation