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.

29 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 48clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai453Chennai448Delhi442Kolkata304Bangalore194Jaipur163Ahmedabad149Karnataka138Hyderabad135Pune113Nagpur110Chandigarh103Surat79Indore64Visakhapatnam62Panaji62Amritsar56Lucknow51Calcutta40Raipur38Cuttack30Cochin29Rajkot24Patna21SC20Allahabad12Varanasi12Telangana11Agra10Dehradun6Guwahati6Jabalpur5Jodhpur4Orissa4Rajasthan4Andhra Pradesh2Punjab & Haryana1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1

Key Topics

Section 80P46Section 5621Section 14816Addition to Income14Condonation of Delay13Deduction11Section 80P(2)8Section 28Section 250

CELESTIAL INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD,AMBALAMUGAL vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), ERNALUAM

In the result, appeal is "Dismissed"

ITA 160/COCH/2024[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhcelestial Infrastructure (P) Ltd. Dcit, Corporate Circle - 1(1) Aiswarya Towers Cr Building, Is Press Road Hoc Junction, Ambalamugal Vs. Kochi 682018 Ernakulam 682302 [Pan: Aaccc6737F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Thomas Thomas, CAFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 249Section 249(3)Section 250

section 249(3) must be a cause which is beyond control of party invoking aid of provisions. In the case of T.Kishan [2012] 23 taxmann.com 383, Hon'ble ITAT Hyderabad has held that in granting indulgence and condoning delay in filing appeal, it must be proved beyond shadow of doubt that assessee was diligent and was not guilty of negligence

Showing 1–20 of 29 · Page 1 of 2

8
Section 143(1)8
Section 227
Cash Deposit6

GEM TECH SOLUTIONS P LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), TRIVANDRUM

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

ITA 38/COCH/2023[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 May 2025AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.Govind G.Nair,AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR
Section 148

condone the delay of 48 days and proceed to decide these appeals. 5. The assessee has raised six grounds of appeal, out of which, ground No. (a) to (d) are related to the initiation of proceedings under the provisions of section

M/S.GEM TECH SOLUTIONS P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

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

ITA 97/COCH/2023[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 May 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.Govind G.Nair,AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR
Section 148

condone the delay of 48 days and proceed to decide these appeals. 5. The assessee has raised six grounds of appeal, out of which, ground No. (a) to (d) are related to the initiation of proceedings under the provisions of section

GEM TECH SOLUTIONS P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

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

ITA 96/COCH/2023[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 May 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.Govind G.Nair,AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR
Section 148

condone the delay of 48 days and proceed to decide these appeals. 5. The assessee has raised six grounds of appeal, out of which, ground No. (a) to (d) are related to the initiation of proceedings under the provisions of section

THE VELLATHOOVAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,IDUKKI vs. ITO, WARD 1 & TPS, THODUPUZHA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 848/COCH/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri C.A. Jojo, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 80P

48,915/-. The said return of income was processed by the CPC u/s. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) vide intimation dated 06.07.2020 disallowing the claim for deduction u/s. 80P of the Act on the ground that the return of income was not fled within the due date specified under the provisions of section

THRISSUR DISTRICT POLICE CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THRISSUR

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

ITA 408/COCH/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri M.Ramdas, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. A.R
Section 154Section 250Section 253(5)

condoning the delay of 96 days in filing both these appeals before this Tribunal and accordinglywe admit the same for adjudication. 4. Thebrief fact of the case are that the Assesseebeing an employees' co-operative society formed for the welfare of employees of Kerala Police department of Thrissur District and is registered under Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969.The Assessee

THRISSUR DISTRICT POLICE CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THRISSUR

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

ITA 409/COCH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri M.Ramdas, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. A.R
Section 154Section 250Section 253(5)

condoning the delay of 96 days in filing both these appeals before this Tribunal and accordinglywe admit the same for adjudication. 4. Thebrief fact of the case are that the Assesseebeing an employees' co-operative society formed for the welfare of employees of Kerala Police department of Thrissur District and is registered under Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969.The Assessee

THE MULIYAR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,KASARGOD vs. THE ITO, KASARGOD

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

ITA 86/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K.And Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Muliar Service Co-Operative The Income Tax Officer Bank Ltd. Ward - 1 & Tps Vs. Kanathur P.O., Kasargod 671542 Kasargod

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 80Section 80P

48 days. 5. The CIT (Appeals) ought to have noted that the reason for delay in each case has to be considered independently. The CIT (Appeals) failed to note that the delay was only of few days and it was not a case of inordinate delay. The appellant had explained the reasons for the delay which is a valid, genuine

KODIYIL THAMEEM,PAYYANNUR vs. THE INCME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4, KANNUR

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

ITA 766/COCH/2023[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Jan 2025

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2017-18 Kodiyil Thameem Abc Sales Corporation, Abc Esquire Payannur, Kannur 670307 [Pan: Afppt3775D] .......... Appellant Vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward - 4, Kannur .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Suresh Kumar, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 12.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.01.2025

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 5

48,500/- on account of unexplained cash deposits during demonetisation period. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO. 4. I heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. At the outset I find that the appellant filed appeal

CHAKKITTAPARA SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,CALICUT vs. ITO WARD 2(1), CALICUT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 160/COCH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Smt. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 154Section 250Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

delay of 48 days is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 4.1 In this case, the ld. AO has denied the deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 80P of the Act while processing the return u/s Chakkittapara Service Co-op. Bank Ltd., Calicut Page 5 of 5 143(1) of the Act dated 29.8.2016. Against this assessee filed

MONZEY VARGHESE,PALLIPURAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MATTANCHERY

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 366/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri K.K. Jose, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 148

48 days in filing the present appeal. The appellant filed a petition along with an affidavit seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, wherein it is stated that the delay had occurred due to the fact that the email ID provided in Form 35 belonged to the staff of the CA office who was entrusted with filing

MONZEY VARGHESE,PALLIPURAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MATTANCHERY

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 365/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri K.K. Jose, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 148

48 days in filing the present appeal. The appellant filed a petition along with an affidavit seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, wherein it is stated that the delay had occurred due to the fact that the email ID provided in Form 35 belonged to the staff of the CA office who was entrusted with filing

MONZEY VARGHESE,PALLIPURAM vs. INCOME TAX COMMISIONER, MATTANCHERY

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 367/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri K.K. Jose, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 148

48 days in filing the present appeal. The appellant filed a petition along with an affidavit seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, wherein it is stated that the delay had occurred due to the fact that the email ID provided in Form 35 belonged to the staff of the CA office who was entrusted with filing

THE NALLEPILLY SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NOR43,NALLEPILLY vs. ITO, WARD-1 ASSESSMENT UNIT INCOME TAX, AAYAKAR BHAVAN PALAKKAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 857/COCH/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2020-21 Nallepilly Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant \5/453 Nallepilly, Chittur, Palakkad 678553 [Pan: Aacat5798F] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 .......... Respondent Aayakar Bhavan, English Church Road Palakkad 678001

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

48,484/- u/s. 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). Against the said return of income, the 2 Nallepilly Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Palakkad (hereinafter “the AO”) completed the assessment at a total income of Rs. 43,08,485/- by making an addition of Rs. 43,08,485/- on account of interest

SACRED HEART PUBLIC SCHOOL KOTTAYAM,KOTTAYAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD, KOTTAYAM, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeal and the stay application filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 423/COCH/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri P.V. Chacko, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 11Section 115BSection 12Section 12ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144

48,88,492/-. 2. Brief facts of the case are that he appellant is a charitable trust duly registered under the Trust Act. It is also registered u/s. 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). No regular return of income 2 ITA No. 423/Coch/2025 & SA No. 61/C/2025 Sacred Heart Public School was filed under the provisions of section

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)

48,420/-. While doing so, the AO brought to tax the 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

MARINE BUSINESS ASSOCIATES,KANNUR vs. ITO, KANNUR

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

ITA 558/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.Girly Albert, Sr.DR
Section 145A

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income declaring total income of Rs.37,690 and thereafter the case was selected for scrutiny and the AO determined the income at Rs.6,06,500 by making addition under the head underreporting of closing stock

KOLANGATH MUHAMMED ASLAM,TANUR vs. ITO WARD 1 & TPS, TIRUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed as not maintainable

ITA 1005/COCH/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Daskolangath Muhammed Aslam The Income Tax Officer Kolangath House Ward - 1 & Tps, Tirur Pariyapuram P.O. Vs. Tanur 676302 [Pan:Ccypk9063K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Hamid Hussain, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 5

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) dated 26.10.2018 for Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17 by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC (CIT(A), vide it order dated 06.04.2022. 2. At the outset, it was observed by the Bench that the appeal, filed on 23.12.2022, is delayed by 201 days; the impugned order being admittedly

MARATH VELAYUDHAN JOSHY,TRICHUR vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), THRISSUR

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

ITA 395/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 148

delay of108 days is condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee was a partner in Jas Enterprises, which was engaged in thebusiness of money landing I.T.A. No.395/COCH/2025 Marath Velayudhan Joshy business during the Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16.The assessee had also received contract income from Evergreen Holidays. In response

M/S THURAYUR SERVICE CO -OP BANK LTD,KOZHIKODE vs. THE ITO WARD 2(1), KOZHIKODE

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed and the order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to the contrary are set aside

ITA 196/COCH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 22Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)

48 of the judgment, it was observed that a deduction that is given without any reference to any restriction or limitation cannot be restricted or limited by implication. That subsection (4) of Section 80P which is in the nature of a proviso specifically excludes co-operative banks which are co-operative societies engaged in banking business i.e. engaged in lending