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.

30 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 10(46)clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai501Mumbai430Delhi413Kolkata237Hyderabad210Bangalore184Ahmedabad183Pune164Jaipur144Karnataka142Chandigarh110Visakhapatnam91Amritsar74Nagpur66Raipur61Surat49Cuttack49Indore47Lucknow39Calcutta36Panaji34Cochin30Rajkot25SC24Patna20Varanasi15Dehradun11Telangana11Guwahati10Allahabad8Jodhpur6Agra5Orissa4Ranchi3Jabalpur3Rajasthan1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 20033Section 206C33Section 19233Section 80P(2)(a)21Limitation/Time-bar18Section 14812TDS12Section 234E11Condonation of Delay

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: 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

10(37). 3. The assessing officer assessed the 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

Showing 1–20 of 30 · Page 1 of 2

10
Section 80P(4)8
Section 1478
Deduction7

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

10(37). 3. The assessing officer assessed the 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

THE ACIT, TRICHUR vs. THE DCIT, TRICHUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed and both

ITA 61/COCH/2017[2011-12]Status: PendingITAT Cochin19 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

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

Section 5

condone the delay of 217 days in filing the appeals for all the assessment years. 6. In the result, all the other appeals of the assessee are dismissed as unadmitted. 7. Now coming to the Revenue appeal in ITA No.60/Coch/2017. The Revenue has raised the following grounds: 1. The CIT(A) erred in suggesting that extrapolation of the findings

MOHAMMED TARIQ THAIMADATHIL,KOCHI vs. THE ITO , NON CORP WARD 1(5), KOCHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 265/COCH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year : 2014-15 Shri. Mohammed Tariq Thaimadathil, Vs. Ito, Tariq Manzil, Elmkunnapuzha Road, Non Corporate Ward – 1(5), Kaloor, Kochi. Cochin – 682 107. Pan : Abrpt 7993 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Parvathy Ammal, Ca Revenue By : Shri. K. Jayaganesh, Senior Ar. Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.08.2024 O R D E R Per Prakash Chand Yadav:

For Appellant: Smt. Parvathy Ammal, CAFor Respondent: Shri. K. Jayaganesh, Senior AR
Section 14ASection 40

46 days. Therefore, we are of the view that delay happened in this case requires to be condoned. Now we decide the appeal. 5. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal are that the assessee is an individual filed his return of income for Assessment Year 2014-15 on 29.11.2014 declaring a total income of Rs.2

KATHIKODE CHARITABLE TRUST,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER., THRISSUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes, and it’s stay petitions dismissed as infructuous

ITA 947/COCH/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Jojo, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2

section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), raising demands, including interest, at Rs.28.47 lakhs and Rs.37.75 lakhs for the two consecutive years respectively. The assessee ITA Nos. 947 & 948/Coch/2022 (AY : 2014-15) Kathikode Charitable Trust v. ITO admittedly did not act thereon, stating that it was ‘awaiting’ – whatever that would mean; Sh. Jojo, the learned counsel

KATHIKODE CHARITABLE TRUST,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THRISSUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes, and it’s stay petitions dismissed as infructuous

ITA 948/COCH/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Jojo, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2

section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), raising demands, including interest, at Rs.28.47 lakhs and Rs.37.75 lakhs for the two consecutive years respectively. The assessee ITA Nos. 947 & 948/Coch/2022 (AY : 2014-15) Kathikode Charitable Trust v. ITO admittedly did not act thereon, stating that it was ‘awaiting’ – whatever that would mean; Sh. Jojo, the learned counsel

THE PAVARATTY SERVICE CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO 3918,PAVARATTY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GURUVAYUR, THRISSUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 480/COCH/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Aug 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ramdas M, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

condone the delay of 28 days and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The issue in the present appeal relates to eligibility of the appellant cooperative society for deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. The AO as well as learned CIT(A) denied

THE PAVARATTY SERVICE CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO 3918,PAVARATTY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GURUVAYUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 448/COCH/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Aug 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ramdas M, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

condone the delay of 28 days and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The issue in the present appeal relates to eligibility of the appellant cooperative society for deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. The AO as well as learned CIT(A) denied

THE PAVARATTY SERVICE CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO 3918,PAVARATTY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GURUVAYUR, THRISSUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 479/COCH/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Aug 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ramdas M, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

condone the delay of 28 days and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The issue in the present appeal relates to eligibility of the appellant cooperative society for deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. The AO as well as learned CIT(A) denied

THE PAVARATTY SERVICE CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO 3918,PAVARATTY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GURUVAYUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 478/COCH/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Aug 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ramdas M, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

condone the delay of 28 days and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The issue in the present appeal relates to eligibility of the appellant cooperative society for deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. The AO as well as learned CIT(A) denied

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

46,710/- as against the 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

AKM ERECTORS,ERNAKULAM vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed

ITA 184/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

For Appellant: Smt. Parvathy Ammal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 44A

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 6. The learned counsel for the assessee submits that belated return filed in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act was no taken into consideration by the AO. It is, further submits that estimation of gross profit by the CIT(A) at 12% is unreasonable. It is further submitted that

AKM ERECTORS,ERNAKULAM vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed

ITA 185/COCH/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 May 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

For Appellant: Smt. Parvathy Ammal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 44A

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 6. The learned counsel for the assessee submits that belated return filed in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act was no taken into consideration by the AO. It is, further submits that estimation of gross profit by the CIT(A) at 12% is unreasonable. It is further submitted that

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

section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’) dated 18.3.2015 and 29.3.2014 for assessment year (AY) 2007-2008, respectively. The background facts of both the cases being same, these are heard together, and are being disposed of pera common, consolidated order for the sake of convenience. ITA Nos.870& 884 /Coch/2022 (AY 2007-08) Ajit

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

section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’) dated 18.3.2015 and 29.3.2014 for assessment year (AY) 2007-2008, respectively. The background facts of both the cases being same, these are heard together, and are being disposed of pera common, consolidated order for the sake of convenience. ITA Nos.870& 884 /Coch/2022 (AY 2007-08) Ajit

THE JTCIT(OSD), CALICUT vs. M/S. CHATHAMKULAM PROJECTS & DEVELOPERS P. LTD, PALAKKAD

In the result, both the appeal filed by Revenue as well as the Cross Objection

ITA 170/COCH/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

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

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153A

condone the delay of 17 days and admit the cross objection. The cross objection filed by the assessee is only supportive of the CIT(A) order. 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds: 1) The ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,30,48,402/- made on account of unexplained net worth of the assessee

THE ACIT, CORP CIRCLE-1(1), KOCHI, ERNAKULAM vs. APPOLO TYRES LTD, ERNAKULAM

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

ITA 247/COCH/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Mar 2019AY 2006-07

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

Section 143(3)Section 80I

condone the delay of 52 days and admit the appeal for adjudication. I.T.A. Nos. 247,302, 339, 268&336/Coch/2018& C.O. Nos. 56&57/Coch/2018 6.2 The facts of the case are that this claim was not made in the original return of income or through a revised return of income. The claim was made during the course of assessment proceedings

COMMISSIONER FOR GOVT EXAMINATIONS ,POOJAPPURA vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(2), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 991/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: ----- None -----For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 192Section 200Section 206CSection 234E

delay as liable to be condoned, no serious objection to which was raised by Smt. Devi, the ld. Sr. DR. 4. None appeared for the appellant when the appeals were called out for hearing, and neither is there any adjournment motion despite service of notice of hearing. Hearing in the matter was accordingly proceeded ex parte qua the assessee

COMMISSIONER FOR GOVT EXAMINATIONS ,POOJAPPURA vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(2), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 989/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: ----- None -----For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 192Section 200Section 206CSection 234E

delay as liable to be condoned, no serious objection to which was raised by Smt. Devi, the ld. Sr. DR. 4. None appeared for the appellant when the appeals were called out for hearing, and neither is there any adjournment motion despite service of notice of hearing. Hearing in the matter was accordingly proceeded ex parte qua the assessee

COMMISSIONER FOR GOVT EXAMINATIONS ,POOJAPPURA vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(2), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 992/COCH/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: ----- None -----For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 192Section 200Section 206CSection 234E

delay as liable to be condoned, no serious objection to which was raised by Smt. Devi, the ld. Sr. DR. 4. None appeared for the appellant when the appeals were called out for hearing, and neither is there any adjournment motion despite service of notice of hearing. Hearing in the matter was accordingly proceeded ex parte qua the assessee