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.

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

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai398Chennai325Kolkata177Ahmedabad172Delhi159Bangalore133Hyderabad130Jaipur115Pune105Karnataka100Calcutta66Chandigarh63Surat50Lucknow45Indore42Visakhapatnam41Nagpur34Panaji33Cuttack31Cochin22Patna22Raipur20Agra13Varanasi10Ranchi9Rajkot9Guwahati7Amritsar7SC7Jabalpur5Jodhpur4Dehradun3Telangana3Allahabad1Andhra Pradesh1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Orissa1

Key Topics

Long Term Capital Gains14Capital Gains12Addition to Income9Section 2638Section 54F8Section 143(3)7Section 1477Section 2647Section 1486

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)

long term capital gain on transfer of equity shares by claiming wrong cost of acquisition, for which the assessee had no satisfactory explanation. I.T.A. No 04/Coch/2017 & C.O. No.09/Coch/2017 2.1. There was a delay of 04 days in filing the appeal by the Revenue before the Tribunal. The ld. DR submitted that due to administrative reasons, there was delay in filing

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

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

Showing 1–20 of 22 · Page 1 of 2

Exemption6
Section 2505
Section 139(4)5
ITA 116/COCH/2019[2010-11]Status: Disposed
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

long term capital gain vide order dated 18.01.2016. 4. My income tax representation in connection with the 263 proceedings was handled by CA V.Sunodkumar, a Practicing Chartered Accountant at Trivandrum and I was under the impression that the appeal has been filed against the order under section 263. The fact of the non filing was noticed only when I approached

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

long term capital gain vide order dated 18.01.2016. 4. My income tax representation in connection with the 263 proceedings was handled by CA V.Sunodkumar, a Practicing Chartered Accountant at Trivandrum and I was under the impression that the appeal has been filed against the order under section 263. The fact of the non filing was noticed only when I approached

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. The Assessing Officer found that the assessee had not utilized

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: 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

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

SRI.C.P. VISWANATHA MENON,KOTTAYAM vs. THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM, KOTTAYAM

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

ITA 589/COCH/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Sri.P.RejinarkFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 153ASection 153CSection 264Section 54F

long term capital gains computed. The grounds raised before the CIT(A) is concerning the validity of assessment u/s 153C of the I.T.Act. According to the assessee, no satisfaction note was recorded by the Assessing Officer in the case of searched person, therefore, assessment completed u/s 153C of the I.T.Act in case of assessee is invalid. Since the grounds raised

SRI.MATHEW PHILIP,KOCHI vs. THE ITO, WD-1(3), KOCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 443/COCH/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Nov 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm Assessment Year:2015-16

Section 69

condone the delay of 59 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has grossly erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 32,50,000/- made by the Assessing Authority u/s. 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The ld. Commissioner

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