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.

18 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 2(47)clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai565Mumbai483Delhi418Kolkata271Bangalore194Ahmedabad167Karnataka151Chandigarh138Jaipur133Hyderabad126Pune124Raipur91Nagpur74Indore63Lucknow48Calcutta44Visakhapatnam42Surat35Cuttack31Rajkot28SC25Patna24Cochin18Guwahati13Telangana12Agra9Amritsar8Allahabad8Varanasi6Jodhpur5Rajasthan4Orissa3Ranchi3Panaji3Dehradun1Punjab & Haryana1Andhra Pradesh1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Jabalpur1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 234E24Section 200A20Section 80P11Section 271D10Section 80I9Deduction7Condonation of Delay7Section 1486Section 139(1)

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)

section 2(47) of the Act and, therefore, the question of taxability of 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

5
Section 2505
Cash Deposit5
Addition to Income5

THE ADHYAPAKA C-O-PBANK LTD , PATHANAMTHITTA vs. ITO, WARD 4, THIRUVALLA, THIRUVALLA

ITA 48/COCH/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri B.R. Baskaran, Am The Adhyapaka Cooperative D.C.I.T., Cpc Bank Ltd, No. A 300 Bangalore Vs. Puthussery P.O., Kallooppara Pathanamthtta 689602 Pan – Aaaat6387Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 1Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 80Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

delay in filing of the return has been condoned and the return has been treated as a return filed under Section 139(1) of the Act. Further the issue in the appeal is highly debatable issue and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of The Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. reported in 414 ITR 67 had held

KUNCHARAVILA EDUCATIONAL TRUST,PARAVUR,KOLLAM vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 121/COCH/2021[2014-14(26Q3)]Status: HeardITAT Cochin20 May 2022

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

For Appellant: Sri.K.Jawaharlal, CAFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamunna Devi, Sr.DR
Section 200ASection 234E

47 days and proceed to dispose of these appeals on merits. 3. The solitary issue that is raised in all the appeals is whether the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the Assessing Officer’s orders passed u/s 200A of the I.T.Act, wherein he had levied late fees u/s 234E of the I.T.Act for various quarters. 4. The brief facts

KUNCHARAVILA EDUCATIONAL TRUST,KOLLAM vs. ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 122/COCH/2021[2014-15 (26Q4)]Status: HeardITAT Cochin20 May 2022

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

For Appellant: Sri.K.Jawaharlal, CAFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamunna Devi, Sr.DR
Section 200ASection 234E

47 days and proceed to dispose of these appeals on merits. 3. The solitary issue that is raised in all the appeals is whether the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the Assessing Officer’s orders passed u/s 200A of the I.T.Act, wherein he had levied late fees u/s 234E of the I.T.Act for various quarters. 4. The brief facts

KUNCHARAVILA EDUCATIONAL TRUST,KOLLAM vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 124/COCH/2021[2015-16 (26Q2)]Status: HeardITAT Cochin20 May 2022

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

For Appellant: Sri.K.Jawaharlal, CAFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamunna Devi, Sr.DR
Section 200ASection 234E

47 days and proceed to dispose of these appeals on merits. 3. The solitary issue that is raised in all the appeals is whether the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the Assessing Officer’s orders passed u/s 200A of the I.T.Act, wherein he had levied late fees u/s 234E of the I.T.Act for various quarters. 4. The brief facts

KUNCHARAVILA EDUCATIONAL TRUST,KOLLAM vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 123/COCH/2021[2014-15 (26Q2)]Status: HeardITAT Cochin20 May 2022

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

For Appellant: Sri.K.Jawaharlal, CAFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamunna Devi, Sr.DR
Section 200ASection 234E

47 days and proceed to dispose of these appeals on merits. 3. The solitary issue that is raised in all the appeals is whether the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the Assessing Officer’s orders passed u/s 200A of the I.T.Act, wherein he had levied late fees u/s 234E of the I.T.Act for various quarters. 4. The brief facts

ACIT, KOCHI vs. M/S SKYLINE BUILDERS, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 942/COCH/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.Sundarasan S, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Sri.P.M.Veeramani, CA
Section 801B(10)Section 80I

2 ITA Nos.927-928-942/Coch/2024. Skyline Builders. therein would mutatis mutandis apply to the other appeals, as well. 3. All these appeals are delayed by 47 days. For the reasons mentioned in the condonation petition, we hereby condone the delay of 47 days and proceed to decide these appeals by way of this consolidated order for the sake of convenience

ACIT, ERNAKULAM vs. M/S SKYLINE BUILDERS, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 928/COCH/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.Sundarasan S, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Sri.P.M.Veeramani, CA
Section 801B(10)Section 80I

2 ITA Nos.927-928-942/Coch/2024. Skyline Builders. therein would mutatis mutandis apply to the other appeals, as well. 3. All these appeals are delayed by 47 days. For the reasons mentioned in the condonation petition, we hereby condone the delay of 47 days and proceed to decide these appeals by way of this consolidated order for the sake of convenience

ACIT, ERNAKULAM vs. M/S SKYLINE BUILDERS, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 927/COCH/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.Sundarasan S, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Sri.P.M.Veeramani, CA
Section 801B(10)Section 80I

2 ITA Nos.927-928-942/Coch/2024. Skyline Builders. therein would mutatis mutandis apply to the other appeals, as well. 3. All these appeals are delayed by 47 days. For the reasons mentioned in the condonation petition, we hereby condone the delay of 47 days and proceed to decide these appeals by way of this consolidated order for the sake of convenience

KUNDOLY KRISHNANKUTTY SUNIL,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 2(1), THRISSUR

ITA 547/COCH/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Sept 2025AY 2016-2017
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54FSection 80C

condone the delay of 86 days in filing\nthe present appeal and proceed to adjudicate the grounds raised by\nthe Assessee in the present appeal.\n3.\nThe Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal :\n\"1.\nThe order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals),\nNFAC u/s 250 of the IT Act, 1961 is opposed to law and\ncontrary

THE AROOR CENTRAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,ALAPPUZHA vs. ITO, WARD -5, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeals and stay applications filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 371/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kumar Varma, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80ASection 80P

section 80AC of the Act. Accordingly, disallowed the claim for deduction u/s. 80P after making several disallowances. The AO assessed income of Rs. 94,66,941/- under the head ‘business’. 5. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal placing reliance on 3 ITA 371 & 372/Coch/2025/SA 51 & 52/C/2024 The Aroor

THE AROOR CENTRAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,ALAPPUZHA vs. ITO, WARD -2, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeals and stay applications filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 372/COCH/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

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

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kumar Varma, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80ASection 80P

section 80AC of the Act. Accordingly, disallowed the claim for deduction u/s. 80P after making several disallowances. The AO assessed income of Rs. 94,66,941/- under the head ‘business’. 5. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal placing reliance on 3 ITA 371 & 372/Coch/2025/SA 51 & 52/C/2024 The Aroor

INDIRA GANDHI MEMORIAL TRUST,NELLIKUZHY, KOTHAMANGALAM vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION), ERNAKULAM

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 54/COCH/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Sri.P.T.Joy, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 269SSection 271D

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a trust registered under the provisions of the Act and run various educational institutions. During the assessment year 2012- 2013, the assessment was made without any additions to the income returned by the assessee. On going through the documents

INDIRA GANDHI MEMORIAL TRUST,NELLIKUZHY P.O vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), ERNAKULAM

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 165/COCH/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Sri.P.T.Joy, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 269SSection 271D

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a trust registered under the provisions of the Act and run various educational institutions. During the assessment year 2012- 2013, the assessment was made without any additions to the income returned by the assessee. On going through the documents

SHAFI MUSALIAR SAINALABDEEN MUSALIAR,KOLLAM vs. ITO, WARD 2, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the stay application is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 231/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 145(3)Section 148Section 292B

2. The appeal is delayed by eight days. The assessee filed a petition explaining the reasons for the delay. After considering the submissions, I.T.A. No.231 & S.A. No.44/COCH/2025 Shafi Musaliar Sainalabdeen Musaliar we are satisfied that the delay was due to reasonable cause. Accordingly, the delay is condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 3. Brief facts

NEW GIRIJA JEWELLERS,KASARGOD vs. THE ITO WARD 1, KASARGOD

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 654/COCH/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhnew Girija Jewellers The Income Tax Officer Kmcw-1-1496, Nr. Bus Stand Ward -1, Kasaragod Main Road, Kanhangad Vs. Kasaragod 671315 [Pan: Aaepn7303F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Section 250Section 250(6)Section 40

section 40(b) disallowance of Rs. 2,47,700/- on account of excess remuneration claim without dealing with the relevant factual matrix as contemplated u/s. 250(6) of the Act requiring him to frame points of determination followed by a 2 New Girija Jewellers detailed discussion thereon. Faced with this situation, we deem it fit appropriate to restore the issue

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