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.

42 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 51clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai557Chennai495Delhi417Kolkata333Hyderabad252Bangalore246Pune229Ahmedabad199Jaipur162Karnataka144Chandigarh128Nagpur95Lucknow59Indore58Cuttack54Cochin42Surat42Amritsar41Calcutta38Raipur35Visakhapatnam34Rajkot30SC19Jodhpur16Telangana13Patna11Guwahati9Agra8Jabalpur8Varanasi6Allahabad6Orissa5Dehradun4Rajasthan4Panaji3Ranchi2Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 80P50Section 20033Section 206C33Section 19233Section 5621Deduction20Section 14818Limitation/Time-bar16Section 143(3)

M/S KADIRUR SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,KANNUR vs. ITO WARD 2, KANNUR

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

ITA 104/COCH/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Kadirur Service Co- Operative Bank Ltd., The Income Tax Kadirur, Officer, Thalassery, Ward – 2, Kannur, Kannur. Kerala – 670 642. Vs. Pan: Aaffk6859E Appellant Respondent : Shri Arun Raj .S, Assessee By Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ilayaraja K.S, Sr. Dr

For Respondent: Shri Arun Raj .S
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 51Section 80p

condone delay by enacting section 51 of the Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial

M/S.OBERON EDIFICES & ESTATES P. LTD,,KOCHI vs. THE PR.CIT,, TRIVANDRUM

Showing 1–20 of 42 · Page 1 of 3

12
Condonation of Delay12
Section 234E11
TDS11

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

ITA 361/COCH/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. No. 361/Coch/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Oberon Edifices & Estates Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Oberon Mall, Income-Tax, Trivandrum. Nh Bye-Pass, Edapally, Kochi-682 024. [Pan:Aaaco 7942E]

Section 263

delay in filing the appeal before us and hence, we condone the same and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4 I.T.A. No./361/C/2017 2. On merits, the assessee has challenged the jurisdiction of the CIT to pass order u/s. 263 of the Act. The assessee has also challenged the following directions of the CIT: A From out of various sources

M/S BAYSHORE SEAWOOD PROJECTS,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO WARD 1(1), NON CORPORATE , RANGE 1, KOCHI

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

ITA 283/COCH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Bayshore Seawood Projects, The Income Tax 66/4952, Family Welfare Officer, Centre Bldg, Ward – 1(1), 2Nd Floor, Non-Corporate, M.G. Road, Range 1, Vs. Ernakulam – 682 035. Kochi. Pan: Aaifb4357R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Joyal George, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ilayaraja K.S, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Joyal George, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ilayaraja K.S, Sr. DR
Section 51

condone delay by enacting section 51 of the Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial

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

MULIYAR AGRICULTURIST WELFARE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,KASARGOD vs. THE ITO WARD 1 & TPS, KASARGOD

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

ITA 455/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2017-18 Muliyar Agriculturist Welfare .......... Appellant Co-Operative Society Ltd. 374, Bovikanam Post, Muliyar, Kasaragod [Pan: Aafam1658Q] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward - 1 & Tps, Kasaragod

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

section 80P 2 Muliyar Agriculturist Welfare Co-op. Society Ltd. of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Income Tax Officer,Ward-1, Kasaragod (hereinafter called "the AO") vide order dated 19.12.2019 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act at total income of Rs. 3, 54,680/- . While

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

P V MERCY,THRISSUR vs. ITO, W-1, GURUVAYOOR

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

ITA 824/COCH/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Feb 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 P.V. Mercy .......... Appellant Aiswarya Traders, Nhamangad P.O. Vylathur, Thrissur 680307 [Pan: Acwpv0753D] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward - 1, Guruvayur Appellant By: Ms. Tesin Mathew, Advocate Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 23.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.02.2025

For Appellant: Ms. Tesin Mathew, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

Section 40A(3) particularly when he admitted and accepted various cash payments and receipts out of business expediency made between the appellant and the sister concern, M/s Vellara Communications. 3 P.V. Mercy v] The learned assessing officer erred in adding back Rs 491877 (166026+325851) to business income as unconfirmed creditors without having any material on hand as evidence against

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)

51,48,484/- 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

MRS. THANKAMANI VARADARAJULU,KOTTAYAM vs. THE DCIT,CEN-CIRCLE-2, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, appeals of the assesses are allowed

ITA 374/COCH/2019[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Sept 2019AY 2002-03

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

Section 271(1)

section 271(1) (c) of the Income Tax Act 1961. 5 I.T.A. Nos.374-380/Coch/2019 381 to 384/coch/2019 3.1 It was the case of the assessee that income from house properties was a pure accidental omission and the assessee was not in receipt of any rent for most parts of the year and at the time of filing the return, this fact

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

SRI.C.SHAJI,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(1), TRIVNDRUM

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

ITA 505/COCH/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Dr.Pradeep K.P., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR

condone the delay and proceed to dispose of the same on merits. 3. First issue for our consideration is as under:- “The purchase of timber for the year for a total value consideration of Rs.11,38,66,879/- is genuine and 2 Sri.C.Shaji. supported by valid documents. The disallowance of Rs.73,34,227/- and estimation of the said amount

M/S.KOVILAKAM HOTEL P LTD,THRISSUR vs. THE ACIT,, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 715/COCH/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin18 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K.

Section 143(2)Section 37(1)

condone the delay of 27 days in filing the appeal and proceed to dispose off the appeal on merits. 3. The solitary issue that is raised in this appeal is whether the CIT(A) is justified in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in treating the sum of Rs.60,25,240/- as capital expenditure. 4. Briefly stated, the facts

ANGAMALY SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD NO 714,ANGAMALY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 AND TPS, ALUVA, ALUVA

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

ITA 710/COCH/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20 Angamaly Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. No.714, Angamaly So Vs. Ernakulam Ito Ward-1 & Tps Kerala 683 572 Aluva Pan No : Aacaa1050B Appellant Respondent Appellant By : None. Respondent By : Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.04.2025 O R D E R Per Keshav Dubey: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 21.6.2024 Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1065923392(1) For The Ay 2019-20. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Angamaly Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Angamaly Page 2 Of 6

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 119(2)(b)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 80ASection 80P

51,684/- for the AY 2019-20. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment completed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 21.02.2024, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC. 5. The ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that the appellant has not informed about the outcome of condonation petition

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 195/COCH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

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)

51 operative bank which are covered under Section 56 (cci) read with (ccvii) read with the provisions of the NABARD Act, 1981. Thus, it is only these three banks which are co-operative banks which require a licence under the BR Act, 1949 to engage in banking business. If any bank does not fall within the nomenclature of the Thurayur

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)

51 operative bank which are covered under Section 56 (cci) read with (ccvii) read with the provisions of the NABARD Act, 1981. Thus, it is only these three banks which are co-operative banks which require a licence under the BR Act, 1949 to engage in banking business. If any bank does not fall within the nomenclature of the Thurayur

HASEENA MEHBOOB,CALICUT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1), KOZHIKODE

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

ITA 954/COCH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 May 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri G. Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 68

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 6. The learned counsel for the assessee submits that the CIT(A) grossly erred in estimating the agricultural income at 125% of agricultural income for the immediately preceding year without appreciating the facts of the case in the proper perspective. He further submits that the appellant had submitted bills in respect

THE ACIT,CIR-1(1),, TRIVANDRUM vs. M/S.US TECHNOLOGY INTERNATIONAL P. LTD, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, both appeal of the Revenue and the Cross Objection of the

ITA 514/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

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

Section 10ASection 10A(5)Section 253(2)

delay of 496 days in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals), Thiruvananthapuram, in so far as on the points mentioned below are con concerned, is opposed to law on the facts and circumstances

KOOL HOME BUILDERS,ERNAKULAM-MARADU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ERNAKULAM,KOCHI

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

ITA 584/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Kool Home Builders Principal Commissioner Of Vi/56, Nh-47 Bypass Income Tax Vs. Maradu, Cochin 682034 Kochi [Pan: Aalfk8274F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sherry Umman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the issue on merit. 5. The learned PCIT on examination of the assessment records u/s 263 of the Act found that the assessee has claimed deduction of capital expenditure amounting to Rs. 1,20, 87,830/- and Rs. 80,51,962/-, the fact of which has not been verified by the AO during