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.

52 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 40clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai817Delhi698Mumbai692Kolkata461Bangalore271Ahmedabad242Hyderabad208Jaipur208Pune168Karnataka151Chandigarh93Raipur79Indore72Surat66Amritsar55Cochin52Calcutta48Nagpur46Lucknow46Rajkot43Visakhapatnam37Panaji36SC27Patna24Telangana21Cuttack17Jodhpur10Guwahati8Dehradun8Jabalpur7Varanasi6Rajasthan5Orissa5Agra3Ranchi3Allahabad3Andhra Pradesh2Himachal Pradesh1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1DIPAK MISRA R.K. AGRAWAL PRAFULLA C. PANT1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)35Addition to Income34Cash Deposit21Reassessment20Section 118Demonetization18Comparables/TP18Section 80P15Section 148

KERALA TRANSPORT DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LIMITED ,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ACIT,CIRCLE 1(1), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

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

ITA 460/COCH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2016-17 Kerala Transport Development Finance .......... Appellant Corporation Limited, Thiruvananthapuram. Pan: Aabck1318F

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Pradeep, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Veni Raj, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 40

section 40(a)(iib)(B) of the Act. 3 Kerala Transport Development Finance Corportion Limited vs. ACIT Further, the CIT(A) also confirmed the addition on account of discrepancy of interest income of Rs. 15,69,364/-. 4. Being aggrieved by the decision of the CIT(A), the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal

K.L ABDUL SATHAR,SOUTH BAZAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIOER OF INCOME TAX, KANNUR

Showing 1–20 of 52 · Page 1 of 3

13
Deduction13
Section 6812
Condonation of Delay12

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

ITA 614/COCH/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Apr 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear:2009-10 K.L. Abdul Sathar South Bazar Kannur 670002 Vs. Dcit Kannur Pan No : Aaffk4769B Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri R. Krishnan, A.R. Respondent By : Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 19.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.04.2025 O R D E R Perkeshav Dubey: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 29.01.2024 Vide Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1060194335(1) For The Ay 2009-10 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250

delay is condoned, and appeal is admitted for adjudication. 6. Now the brief facts of the case are that the assessee is dealing in purchase and sale of timber, tiles and other allied goods. For the assessment year 2009-10, the assessee firm filed its return of income on 24.3.2010 declaring total income of Rs.11,79,760/-. The return

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THRISSUR vs. THE CSB BANK LTD, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 542/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Satish Modi, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 144BSection 147Section 250

condone the delay of 60 days in filing the present appeal and proceed to examine the grounds raised in the present appeal. 2. The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal : “1. The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], New Delhi in DIN and Order No. DIN ITBA/APLS/S/250/2024-25/1074993866(1) dated 25.03.2025 against assessment

VISWANATHA SHENOY,ERNAKULAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(2), KOCHI, KOCHI

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

ITA 34/COCH/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Feb 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2007-08

For Respondent: Shri Nithyananda
Section 194CSection 40

section 194C of Page 2 of 4 the Act and therefore the AO had issued a notice proposing to disallow the expenses u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The assessee submitted that he has obtained the declaration in form 15-I as per Rule 29D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 and by mistakenly the said forms were

SEA CASTLE AN AYURVEDIC AND LEISURE HOTEL(HILL & SEA VIEW AYURVEDIC BEACH RESORT),THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ITO, WARD 1(4), RANGE I, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

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

ITA 988/COCH/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

For Appellant: Ms. Krishna K., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 40Section 43B

section 43B of the Act. The AO also made addition of Rs. 2,50,000/- being the excess remuneration paid to partners u/s. 40(b) of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. 5. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before

SEA CASTLE AN AYURVEDIC AND LEISURE HOTEL(HILL & SEA VIEW AYURVEDIC BEACH RESORT),THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ITO, WARD 1(4), RANGE I, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

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

ITA 987/COCH/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

For Appellant: Ms. Krishna K., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 40Section 43B

section 43B of the Act. The AO also made addition of Rs. 2,50,000/- being the excess remuneration paid to partners u/s. 40(b) of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. 5. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before

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

NITTA GELATIN INDIA LIMITED,KOCHI vs. CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 258/COCH/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Nitta Gelatin India Limited ..….……….Appellant 50/1002, Sbt Avenue, Panampilly Nagar, Kochi Kerala – 682036 [Pan:Aabck1582H] Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle 2(1) , Kochi ..….……….Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Gopi K,CA
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

condone the delay in both cases. ITA No. 258/Kochi/2025 – A.Y. 2012–13 3. In the present case the assessee originally filed a return of income declaring a loss of Rs.12,19,08,737, and subsequently filed a revised return with a loss of Rs.2,77,97,330. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) on 10.03.2015, accepting the loss

NITTA GELATIN INDIA LIMITED,KOCHI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 268/COCH/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Nitta Gelatin India Limited ..….……….Appellant 50/1002, Sbt Avenue, Panampilly Nagar, Kochi Kerala – 682036 [Pan:Aabck1582H] Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle 2(1) , Kochi ..….……….Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Gopi K,CA
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

condone the delay in both cases. ITA No. 258/Kochi/2025 – A.Y. 2012–13 3. In the present case the assessee originally filed a return of income declaring a loss of Rs.12,19,08,737, and subsequently filed a revised return with a loss of Rs.2,77,97,330. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) on 10.03.2015, accepting the loss

BLOSSOM INNERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD 1(1), KOCHI

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

ITA 826/COCH/2024[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Jun 2025AY 2023-2024

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2023-24

For Appellant: Shri Radhesh Bhatt, CAFor Respondent: Shri Omanakuttan, Snr AR
Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 40Section 80J

40(a)(ia), the assessee submitted that the said amount was already disallowed in the preceding previous year and claimed during the year under the consideration on payment basis. The Ld.CIT(A) had partly allowed the appeal in which the deduction claimed u/s. 80JJAA of the Act was not accepted for the reason that the appellate authorities has no power

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

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.2,26,550/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny

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 at Rs 99,39,969 as against Nil claimed by the appellant. The appellant

PEROORKADA SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO WARD-2(1), TRIVANDRUM

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

ITA 343/COCH/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Shri Sundarasan S., CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 68Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(i)

section 80P of the Act and also placing reliance on the decision of Full Bench judgement of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Chirakkal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT[2016] 384 ITR 490 (Ker). The AO also made addition u/s. 68 of the Act of Rs. 40,66,82,991/-. The AO also made

PEROORKADA SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO WARD-2(1), TRIVANDRUM

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

ITA 380/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Shri Sundarasan S., CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 68Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(i)

section 80P of the Act and also placing reliance on the decision of Full Bench judgement of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Chirakkal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT[2016] 384 ITR 490 (Ker). The AO also made addition u/s. 68 of the Act of Rs. 40,66,82,991/-. The AO also made

PEROORKADA SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO WARD-2(1), TRIVANDRUM

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

ITA 387/COCH/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Shri Sundarasan S., CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 68Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(i)

section 80P of the Act and also placing reliance on the decision of Full Bench judgement of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Chirakkal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT[2016] 384 ITR 490 (Ker). The AO also made addition u/s. 68 of the Act of Rs. 40,66,82,991/-. The AO also made

KADUNGAMPARAMBIL MANUAL GEORGE JOSEPH,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO , NON CORPORATE WARD 2(4) & TPS, KOCHI

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 3/COCH/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Ms. Lakshmi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Section 1Section 143(3)

40,00,000/- in the given facts and circumstances of the case would meet the ends of justicein assessee’s case. Necessary computation shall follow as per law. 8. We now proceed to deal with the consequential section 271B and section 271(1)(c) penalties for concealment and furnishing of inaccrate particulars of income involving varyig sums in these appeals

KADUNGAMPARAMBIL MANUAL GEORGE JOSEPH,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO , NON CORPORATE WARD 2(4) & TPS, KOCHI

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 9/COCH/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Ms. Lakshmi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Section 1Section 143(3)

40,00,000/- in the given facts and circumstances of the case would meet the ends of justicein assessee’s case. Necessary computation shall follow as per law. 8. We now proceed to deal with the consequential section 271B and section 271(1)(c) penalties for concealment and furnishing of inaccrate particulars of income involving varyig sums in these appeals

KADUNGAMPARAMBIL MANUAL GEORGE JOSEPH,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO , NON CORPORATE WARD 2(4) & TPS, KOCHI

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 6/COCH/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Ms. Lakshmi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Section 1Section 143(3)

40,00,000/- in the given facts and circumstances of the case would meet the ends of justicein assessee’s case. Necessary computation shall follow as per law. 8. We now proceed to deal with the consequential section 271B and section 271(1)(c) penalties for concealment and furnishing of inaccrate particulars of income involving varyig sums in these appeals

KADUNGAMPARAMBIL MANUAL GEORGE JOSEPH,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO , NON CORPORATE WARD 2(4) & TPS, KOCHI

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 4/COCH/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Ms. Lakshmi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Section 1Section 143(3)

40,00,000/- in the given facts and circumstances of the case would meet the ends of justicein assessee’s case. Necessary computation shall follow as per law. 8. We now proceed to deal with the consequential section 271B and section 271(1)(c) penalties for concealment and furnishing of inaccrate particulars of income involving varyig sums in these appeals