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.

16 results for “condonation of delay”+ Long Term Capital Gainsclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai405Chennai348Kolkata184Delhi165Ahmedabad152Bangalore144Hyderabad112Jaipur107Karnataka100Pune83Calcutta66Chandigarh50Surat50Indore48Lucknow45Cuttack34Nagpur34Panaji32Visakhapatnam23Patna22Rajkot20Raipur18Cochin16Agra12Varanasi10Ranchi9SC7Guwahati7Amritsar6Jabalpur5Jodhpur4Dehradun3Telangana3A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Andhra Pradesh1Orissa1Allahabad1

Key Topics

Capital Gains9Long Term Capital Gains9Addition to Income6Section 1475Section 2505Section 143(3)5Section 1484Section 2(47)4Limitation/Time-bar

RAJU JOSEPH VAYALAT,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO, WARD-2(5), KOCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 273/COCH/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Aug 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

long-term capital gain at Rs. 30,97,266.The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) on 28.12.2016, determining total income at Rs. 2,54,33,349. 3. Aggrieved by the above order, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A). However, he failed to substantiate his claims or produce documentary evidence either regarding the unexplained credits

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: Disposed
4
Section 143(1)3
Section 683
Natural Justice3
ITAT Cochin
11 Jun 2025
AY 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

long term capital gains. 5. As against the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and relied on the reports furnished by the authorities and contended that the land sold by the assessee is nothing but an agricultural land and therefore the capital gain provision would not be applicable. The Ld.CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal

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

long term 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

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

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)

long term capital gains of Rs. 11,71,08,481/- on transfer of land. 3. The factual background leading to the addition is that the appellant is owner of land admeasuring 150 cents in Kakkanad, Ernakulam. The appellant executed a registered power of attorney vide document No. 375/2011 on 23.11.2011 for development of that land in favour of M/s Skyline

LALY CHIRAKANDATHIL GEORGE,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT, KOCHI

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

ITA 73/COCH/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Laly Chirakandathil George The Acit Corp. Circle 1(2) Kattarukudiyil, Rmv Road, Kochi Vs. Elamakara, Kochi-26

For Appellant: Shri Mathew JosephFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi
Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 74(1)(a)

capital gains (long term)’, thereby declaring total income at Rs.10,42,400/-. The assessee contended that the intimation u/s. 143(1) of the Act, the 3 Laly Chirakandathil George vs. The ACIT Corp. Circle1(2) CPC has erroneously determined total income at Rs.29,18,400/- after disallowing the claim made by the assessee

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

long term 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

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

long term capital gain of Rs.90,85,063 and interest income of Rs.3,72,522. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice u/s. 143(2) was duly served on the assessee. During the year under consideration, the assessee sold a property for a sale consideration of Rs.1,01,40,000. The AO completed the assessment

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

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

UTHUMAN SAHIB SHAJI,PATHANAPURAM vs. DCIT , CIRCLE, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, TRIVANDRUM

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

ITA 998/COCH/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Jul 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Sri Sanjit Kumar Das, D.R
Section 144C

delay of 77 days is condoned and admitted for adjudication. 5. Facts of the issue are that in the assessment year under consideration, assessee transferred an immovable property for a sale consideration of Rs.5,12,79,553/- which acquired in the year 2007- 08. In the return of income, assessee has claimed cost of acquisition at Rs.96

JANARDHANAN NAMBOODIRI MUTHATHI ELLAM,KANNUR vs. ITO WARD 3, KANNUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA

ITA 687/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm Assessment Year: 2018-19 Janardhanan Namboodiri .......... Appellant Muthathi Ellam, Korrom P.O., Payannur Kannur 670370 [Pan: Aampe6755E] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Kannur ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Arun Raj, Advocate Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 29.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.10.2025

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 147Section 250

delay of 182 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. Accordingly, the appeal is admitted and taken up for adjudication. 3. We find that the assessment was framed U/s 147 of the Act & addition was confirmed amount to Rs. 35,73,099/- related to income from long term capital gain

JOHN GEORGE,ERNAKULAM vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), KOCHI

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

ITA 766/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm Assessment Year: 2018-19 John George, .......... Appellant Apt No.11A Infra Foreshore, Ifp Road, Fine Arts Avenue, Ernakulam, Kerala- 682 016. Vs. [Pan: Adlpg1701A]

For Appellant: Mr.Gopalakrishnan, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 147

Long term Capital Gain and variation in respect of issue of set off of losses disallowed. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine as the appeal has been filed late by 193 days. 3. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal

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

capital gains, and it claims to carry forwards and set off such loss under Section 72(1), 73(2), 74(1), 74(3) or 74A(3), it is required to file its return of income within the prescribed time u/s 139(1) of the 1961 Act which return of income is to be in the prescribed form and verified

M/S HIGH RANGE FOODS PRIVATE LTD,KOCHI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 1(3), KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 22/COCH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dashigh Range Foods Pvt. Ltd. The Income Tax Officer 28/3030, Cheruparambath Road Corporate Ward – 1(3) Vs. Kadavanthra, Kochi 682020 Kochi [Pan:Aaach6076L] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P.M. Veeramani, Ca Revenue By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 11.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.12.2023 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.06.2022 By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [Cit(A)], Disallowing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting It’S Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) Dated 27.12.2017 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2. The Appeal, Filed On 09.01.2023, Is Delayed By 135 Days. The Condonation Petition Accompanying The Appeal, Which Is Supported By A Sworn Affidavit Dated 29.12.2022 By Shri Simon John, The Director & Principal Officer Of The Assessee- Company, Explains The Delay In Terms Of Non-Conveyance Of The Impugned Order Inasmuch As It’S Uploading On The Itba Was Not Accompanied By A Simultaneous Uploading On The Mobile Application As Well As A Real Time Alert Through Sms, As Required By Clause 11 Of The National Faceless Appeal Scheme (Nfas), So That The Order Cannot Be Regarded As Served On 28.6.2022, The Date Of The Impugned Order And

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Veeramani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

delay was accordingly condoned, and the appeal admitted. This effectively also answers the assessee’s Gd. 2 – not pressed before us, assailing the validity of the impugned order on account of its transmission being not as per NFAS; Gd. 1 being general in nature, not warranting any adjudication. 3. The appeal raises two issues, which we shall take

SAHEED PALKKANDY KOTTOTH,KANNUR vs. DCIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, KOCHI

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 107/COCH/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhsaheed Palkkandy Kottoth Dcit (International Taxation) Safa Kottoth, Paral Kochi Vs. Thalassery, Kannur 670671 [Pan: Akhpp4843M] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: ------- Noe -------For Respondent: Dr. S. Pandian, CIT-DR
Section 250Section 50D

Delay of 205 days in filing the instant appeal is condoned as per assessee’s solemn averments in light of Collector, Land Acquisition vs., MST Katiji [1987] 167 ITR 471 (SC) having settled the law long back that all such technical aspects must make a way for the cause of substantial justice. 2 Saheed Palkkandy Kottoth 3. It emerges during