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.

286 results for “condonation of delay”+ Addition to Incomeclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,026Chennai1,810Delhi1,630Kolkata1,228Pune926Ahmedabad918Hyderabad818Bangalore728Jaipur645Chandigarh503Surat385Patna378Indore377Raipur346Cochin286Lucknow285Visakhapatnam275Amritsar261Supreme Court261Rajkot242Nagpur232Agra199Cuttack190Panaji141Guwahati74Jodhpur70Dehradun68Jabalpur64Allahabad44Ranchi27Varanasi20

Key Topics

Addition to Income74Section 143(3)55Section 80P50Section 25033Cash Deposit28Deduction27Section 5621Condonation of Delay21Section 14818

M/S KADIRUR SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,KANNUR vs. ITO WARD 2, KANNUR

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

ITA 104/COCH/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Kadirur Service Co- Operative Bank Ltd., The Income Tax Kadirur, Officer, Thalassery, Ward – 2, Kannur, Kannur. Kerala – 670 642. Vs. Pan: Aaffk6859E Appellant Respondent : Shri Arun Raj .S, Assessee By Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ilayaraja K.S, Sr. Dr

For Respondent: Shri Arun Raj .S
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 51Section 80p

condoned. 3. The Ld.AR further submitted that, there is delay of 1425 days in filing appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). Page 7 of 16 4. It is submitted that in Form 35, the assessee stated the reason for the delay caused in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), as under: “1. The assessment order dated dated

Showing 1–20 of 286 · Page 1 of 15

...
Section 271D18
Section 234E17
Section 153C15

PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE KUNNAMANGALAM,KOZHIKODE vs. ITO, WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 761/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Richard Mathews, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Income Tax, Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment year 2014-15, vide orders dated 14.01.2025. Since, facts are identical and issues are common, for the sake of convenience, these appeals filed by the assessee are being heard together and disposed of by this consolidated order. 2. At the outset, we find that there is a delay

PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE KUNNAMANGALAM KOZHIKODE,KOZHIKODE vs. ITO ,WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 762/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Richard Mathews, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Income Tax, Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment year 2014-15, vide orders dated 14.01.2025. Since, facts are identical and issues are common, for the sake of convenience, these appeals filed by the assessee are being heard together and disposed of by this consolidated order. 2. At the outset, we find that there is a delay

PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE KUNNAMANAGALAM KOZHIKODE,KOZHIKODE vs. ITO,WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 763/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Richard Mathews, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Income Tax, Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment year 2014-15, vide orders dated 14.01.2025. Since, facts are identical and issues are common, for the sake of convenience, these appeals filed by the assessee are being heard together and disposed of by this consolidated order. 2. At the outset, we find that there is a delay

PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE KUNNAMANGALAM,KOZHIKODE vs. ITO, WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 764/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Richard Mathews, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Income Tax, Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment year 2014-15, vide orders dated 14.01.2025. Since, facts are identical and issues are common, for the sake of convenience, these appeals filed by the assessee are being heard together and disposed of by this consolidated order. 2. At the outset, we find that there is a delay

CELESTIAL INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD,AMBALAMUGAL vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), ERNALUAM

In the result, appeal is "Dismissed"

ITA 160/COCH/2024[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhcelestial Infrastructure (P) Ltd. Dcit, Corporate Circle - 1(1) Aiswarya Towers Cr Building, Is Press Road Hoc Junction, Ambalamugal Vs. Kochi 682018 Ernakulam 682302 [Pan: Aaccc6737F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Thomas Thomas, CAFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 249Section 249(3)Section 250

delay is not condoned, it will cause great hardship to the appellant. The addition has occurred as the appellant did not get an opportunity to present the case. Appellant is a small company with turnover of only Rs. 31.71 lakhs for AY 2009-10. Presently, the company is inactive and there is no turnover and income

SAYEGH PAINT FACTORIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,ERNAKULAM vs. CORPORATE CIR 2(1), KOCHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the stay petition is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 451/COCH/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Snr.AR
Section 144B(6)(vii)Section 148Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

income for the A.Y. 2019-20. Before the PCIT had condoned the said delay, based on the 148 notice, the return as well as the audit report u/s. 44AB of the Act were filed and based on that, the assessment has been completed without making any additions

VALLACHIRA SERVICE CO OP SOCIETY LTD NO 527,VALLACHIRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THRISSUR

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

ITA 962/COCH/2024[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Apr 2025AY 2023-2024

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

For Appellant: Sri.M.Ramdas, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80P

Additional / Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)’s order dated 27.09.2024 passed u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”). The relevant assessment year is 2023-2024. 2. The solitary issue argued by the learned AR is whether the CIT(A) is justified in confirming the disallowance of claim of deduction u/s.80P of the Act. 3. Brief facts

MALLELIL INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, THIRUVALLA

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

ITA 787/COCH/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2015-16 Mallelil Industries Pvt. Ltd. .......... Appellant Attachakkal P.O., Pathanamthitta 689691 [Pan: Aafcm0761Q] Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Thiruvalla .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Surendran, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 24.08.2022 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Company Incorporated Under The Provisions Of Companies Act, 1956. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Manufacture Of Rock Aggregates & Running A Quarry. The Return Of Income For Ay 2015-16 Was Fled On 22.09.2015 Declaring Income Of Rs. 2,54,10,720/-. Survey

For Appellant: Shri Surendran, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 133ASection 263Section 271(1)(c)

additional income of Rs. 1,75,00,000/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the by the ACIT, Circle-1, Thiruvalla (hereinafter called "the AO") vie order dated 30.12.2016 accepting the returned income of Rs. 2,49,10,720/-. Subsequently the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT), Kottayam, in exercise of power vested with

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

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

K.K.BUILDERS,KANNUR vs. DCIT, KOZHIKKODE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 234/COCH/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Pavan Ved, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153DSection 154Section 69C

income from sale of Beverage Rs. 1,91,544/- iv) Addition u/s. 69C Rs. 2,98,05,603/- v) Addition on account difference in gross receipts Rs. 73,93,476/- 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), contesting that no addition can be made u/s. 153A of the Act in the absence of any incriminating material

K.K BUILDERS,KANNUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, CALICUT. , CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 759/COCH/2023[AY 2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025

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

For Appellant: Shri Pavan Ved, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153DSection 154Section 69C

income from sale of Beverage Rs. 1,91,544/- iv) Addition u/s. 69C Rs. 2,98,05,603/- v) Addition on account difference in gross receipts Rs. 73,93,476/- 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), contesting that no addition can be made u/s. 153A of the Act in the absence of any incriminating material

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

Income Tax Act amounts to duplication of the addition and hence the same is absolutely unjustified and unwarranted. 3. This appeal has been filed with a delay of one day, for which the assessee attributes to the postal delay. On perusal of the assessee’s petition for condonation

MULIYAR AGRICULTURIST WELFARE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,KASARGOD vs. THE ITO WARD 1 & TPS, KASARGOD

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

ITA 455/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2017-18 Muliyar Agriculturist Welfare .......... Appellant Co-Operative Society Ltd. 374, Bovikanam Post, Muliyar, Kasaragod [Pan: Aafam1658Q] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward - 1 & Tps, Kasaragod

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

Condonation of delay in submission of appeal. Our income tax assessment for the A.Y 2017-18 was completed by the Assessment Unit of the Income tax department u/s 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 vide order dt. 19-12-2019 on a total income of Rs. 3,54,680/-, Tax payable was determined at Rs.1

SHAHULHAMEED THAHA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ITO, WARD 1(3), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

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

ITA 499/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shahulhameed Thaha, .......... Appellant Tc 18/1937, Varuvilakathu Veedu, Thirumala Po, Trivandrum [Pan: Adjpt 6999 H] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(3), Thiruvananthapuram .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Sreeram Shekar, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.81.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sreeram Shekar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. DR
Section 148

Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act') issued to the appellant. Appellant neither complied with the notice u/s. 148 nor furnished any information. In these circumstances, the AO was constrained to pass the best judgment assessment vide order dated 31/02/2023 making addition of Rs. 47,01,500/-. 3. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, an appeal was filed before

ULLATTIL SILLU,KOZHIKODE vs. ITO, WARD 1(4), KOZHIKODE

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

ITA 131/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Sri.P.Raghunathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271A

Income Tax Portal the appellant had noticed the order was passed by the CIT(A) on 18th March, 2024. Thus, it is submitted that the delay is occurred which is neither intentional nor deliberate. Therefore, it is submitted that the delay may be condoned. 4. On the other hand, the learned Sr.DR vehemently opposed the condonation of delay and submits

MARINE BUSINESS ASSOCIATES,KANNUR vs. ITO, KANNUR

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

ITA 558/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.Girly Albert, Sr.DR
Section 145A

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income declaring total income of Rs.37,690 and thereafter the case was selected for scrutiny and the AO determined the income at Rs.6,06,500 by making addition

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

additional evidence for want of Rule 46A without putting notice to the Appellant to the same for want of a prayers under Rule 46A. H. It is therefore prayed that the Tribunal be pleased to condone the delay of days and remand the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for de nov consideration. If orders as prayed

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

additional evidence for want of Rule 46A without putting notice to the Appellant to the same for want of a prayers under Rule 46A. H. It is therefore prayed that the Tribunal be pleased to condone the delay of days and remand the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for de nov consideration. If orders as prayed