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.

40 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 54clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi582Chennai526Mumbai520Kolkata294Bangalore245Pune211Ahmedabad191Hyderabad144Karnataka141Jaipur136Chandigarh125Nagpur108Indore79Lucknow58Amritsar47Surat46Cochin40Calcutta37Cuttack33Visakhapatnam32Raipur28Patna23Rajkot21SC19Guwahati16Telangana13Jodhpur9Varanasi7Dehradun6Allahabad6Jabalpur5Agra4Orissa3Ranchi2Panaji2Andhra Pradesh2Rajasthan1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Limitation/Time-bar23TDS22Section 234E20Natural Justice20Section 14814Section 80P11Addition to Income11Section 2509Section 143(3)

M/S. PARAVUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK,KOLLAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeal and stay petition filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 767/COCH/2023[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2024

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri Santosh P. Abraham, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, D.R
Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

54 CCH 228 (Coch. Trib), where in it was held as under: “There were no affidavits from the concerned persons who are handling the impugned issues and who are required to take proper steps in filing the appeals before the CIT(A). The reason as come out from the condonation petitions filed by the assessee, is that there was transfer

Showing 1–20 of 40 · Page 1 of 2

9
Deduction9
Section 14A8
Section 139(1)8

SHOBHA RAMAKRISHNANA NAIR,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO, WARD 2, ALUVA

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

ITA 810/COCH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17 Shobha Ramakrishnan Nair Karthika Sebipuram Ito Ernakulam Ward-2 Vs. Manjapra So Aluva Kerala 683581 Pan No :Awrpr5406L Appellant Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 30.01.2025 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 Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 22.12.2023 Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1059003947(1) For The Ay 2016- 17 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 250

54,000/-, deposited in her bank account with SBI, has been assessed as her income, under section 69A of the Act as unexplained money, without taking into account the fact that almost the entire amount has been deposited to the Treasury account of Government of Kerala. The assessment for the subsequent asst. year 2017-18, was completed under section

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

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

P. SURENDRAN,TRIVANDRUM vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(2), TRIVANDRUM

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

ITA 978/COCH/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm P. Surendran Sukanya Bhavan Asst. Cit-1(2) Vadayakkadu, Kunnukuzhy, P.O., Thiruvananthapuram Vs. Thiruvananthapuram-695 035

For Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 40A(3)Section 40a

Delay condoned. 4. The brief facts are that the assessee is an individual and had filed his return of income on 30.11.2014, declaring total income at Rs.1,75,34,220/-. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were duly issued and served upon by the assessee

PANTHEERANKAVE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK,KOZHIKODE vs. ITO,WARD -2(3), KOZHIKODE

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

ITA 368/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2017-18 Pantheerankav Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant Olavanna, Kozhikode 673019 [Pan: Aaaap6394F] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Kozhikode .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Arun Raj S., Advocate Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 04.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.06.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 12.12.2024 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Appellant Is A Co-Operative Society Registered Under The Kerala State Co-Operative Societies Act, 1969. It Is Classified As A Primary Agricultural Credit Co-Operative Society. The Appellant Had Not Filed Return Of Income Under The Provisions Of Section 139(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) For Ay 2017-18. Based On The Information That The Appellant Made

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80P

section 144 at a total income of Rs. 2,54,78,140/-. While doing so, the AO had denied deduction u/s. 80P of the Act and made several disallowances. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order, placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case

CLINT MARTEL WILFRED,ERNAKULAM vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE, KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 206/COCH/2021[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Dec 2022AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Saroj Kumar Parida, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR
Section 143(2)Section 154Section 50C

section 50C cannot be applied here since the transaction happened with the Govt. entity, Cochin Corporation, and there is no hidden transactions in this case. The AO did not accept the contention and brought to tax the difference amount of Rs.21,54,000. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). 4. There was a delay

MOZART GLOBAL FURNITURE,KOTTAKKAL vs. ACIT,, KOZHIKKODE

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

ITA 178/COCH/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri B.R. Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Shri Shaji Poulose, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 234E

Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the period before 01.06.2015. It was the submission that under identical circumstances in the case of K.T. ITA Nos. 172 to 179/Coch/2021 2 M/s. Mozart Gobal Furniture Saidalavi for assessment years 2013-14 to 2015-16 in DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021-22/1034506207(1) dated 29.07.2021 and in assessee’s own case

MOZART GLOBAL FURNITURE,KOTTAKKAL vs. ACIT,, KOZHIKKODE

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

ITA 179/COCH/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri B.R. Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Shri Shaji Poulose, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 234E

Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the period before 01.06.2015. It was the submission that under identical circumstances in the case of K.T. ITA Nos. 172 to 179/Coch/2021 2 M/s. Mozart Gobal Furniture Saidalavi for assessment years 2013-14 to 2015-16 in DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021-22/1034506207(1) dated 29.07.2021 and in assessee’s own case

TIP TOP FURNITURE LAND,MALAPPURAM vs. THE ACIT, GHAZIABAD

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

ITA 132/COCH/2021[2015-16(q1)]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Feb 2022

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri B.R. Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Shri Shaji Poulose, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 234E

Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the period before 01.06.2015. It was the ITA No. 130-163/Coch/2021 2 M/s. Tip Top Furniture Land submission that under identical circumstances in the case of K.T. Saidalavi for assessment years 2013-14 to 2015-16 in DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021-22/1034506207(1) dated 29.07.2021 and in the case of Mozart

TIP TOP FURNITURE LAND,MALAPPURAM vs. THE ACIT, GHAZIABAD

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

ITA 145/COCH/2021[2013-14 (q3)]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Feb 2022

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri B.R. Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Shri Shaji Poulose, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 234E

Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the period before 01.06.2015. It was the ITA No. 130-163/Coch/2021 2 M/s. Tip Top Furniture Land submission that under identical circumstances in the case of K.T. Saidalavi for assessment years 2013-14 to 2015-16 in DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021-22/1034506207(1) dated 29.07.2021 and in the case of Mozart

TIP TOP FURNITURE LAND,MALAPPURAM vs. THE ACIT, GHAZIABAD

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

ITA 130/COCH/2021[2013-14 (Q4)]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Feb 2022

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri B.R. Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Shri Shaji Poulose, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 234E

Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the period before 01.06.2015. It was the ITA No. 130-163/Coch/2021 2 M/s. Tip Top Furniture Land submission that under identical circumstances in the case of K.T. Saidalavi for assessment years 2013-14 to 2015-16 in DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021-22/1034506207(1) dated 29.07.2021 and in the case of Mozart

TIP TOP FURNITURE LAND,MALAPPURAM vs. THE ACIT, GHAZIABAD

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

ITA 146/COCH/2021[2014-15 (q3)]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Feb 2022

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri B.R. Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Shri Shaji Poulose, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 234E

Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the period before 01.06.2015. It was the ITA No. 130-163/Coch/2021 2 M/s. Tip Top Furniture Land submission that under identical circumstances in the case of K.T. Saidalavi for assessment years 2013-14 to 2015-16 in DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021-22/1034506207(1) dated 29.07.2021 and in the case of Mozart

TIP TOP FURNITURE LAND,MALAPPURAM vs. THE ACIT, GHAZIABAD

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

ITA 133/COCH/2021[2015-16 (Q-2)]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Feb 2022

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri B.R. Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Shri Shaji Poulose, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 234E

Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the period before 01.06.2015. It was the ITA No. 130-163/Coch/2021 2 M/s. Tip Top Furniture Land submission that under identical circumstances in the case of K.T. Saidalavi for assessment years 2013-14 to 2015-16 in DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021-22/1034506207(1) dated 29.07.2021 and in the case of Mozart

TIP TOP FURNITURE LAND,MALAPPURAM vs. THE ACIT, GHAZIABAD

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

ITA 147/COCH/2021[2014-15 (q4)]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Feb 2022

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri B.R. Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Shri Shaji Poulose, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 234E

Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the period before 01.06.2015. It was the ITA No. 130-163/Coch/2021 2 M/s. Tip Top Furniture Land submission that under identical circumstances in the case of K.T. Saidalavi for assessment years 2013-14 to 2015-16 in DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021-22/1034506207(1) dated 29.07.2021 and in the case of Mozart

TIP TOP FURNITURE LAND,MALAPPURAM vs. THE ACIT, GHAZIABAD

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

ITA 148/COCH/2021[2015-16 (Q#)]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Feb 2022

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri B.R. Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Shri Shaji Poulose, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 234E

Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the period before 01.06.2015. It was the ITA No. 130-163/Coch/2021 2 M/s. Tip Top Furniture Land submission that under identical circumstances in the case of K.T. Saidalavi for assessment years 2013-14 to 2015-16 in DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021-22/1034506207(1) dated 29.07.2021 and in the case of Mozart

TIP TOP FURNITURE LAND,MALAPPURAM vs. THE ACIT, GHAZIABAD

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

ITA 131/COCH/2021[2014-15 (q1)]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Feb 2022

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri B.R. Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Shri Shaji Poulose, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 234E

Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the period before 01.06.2015. It was the ITA No. 130-163/Coch/2021 2 M/s. Tip Top Furniture Land submission that under identical circumstances in the case of K.T. Saidalavi for assessment years 2013-14 to 2015-16 in DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021-22/1034506207(1) dated 29.07.2021 and in the case of Mozart

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

54 of the Act. 3. The factual background leading to the above addition is that during the previous year relevant to assessment year under consideration the appellant had sold immovable property for a consideration of Rs. 62,31,820/- which was purchased on 12.03.2004 for a consideration of Rs. 1,62,000/-. The appellant returned capital gains

TIPTOP FURNITURE INDUSTRIES,KOTTAKKAL vs. ACIT, CPC-TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

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

ITA 261/COCH/2021[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Mar 2022AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am

For Appellant: Shri Shaji Poulose, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 234E

Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the period before 01.06.2015. It was the submission that under identical circumstances in the case of K.T. Saidalavi for assessment years 2013-14 to 2015-16 in DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021-22/1034506207(1) dated 29.07.2021 and in the case of Mozart Global Furniture in DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/ ITA No. 249-252

TIPTOP FURNITURE INDUSTRIES,KOTTAKKAL vs. ACIT, CPC-TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

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

ITA 258/COCH/2021[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Mar 2022AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am

For Appellant: Shri Shaji Poulose, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 234E

Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the period before 01.06.2015. It was the submission that under identical circumstances in the case of K.T. Saidalavi for assessment years 2013-14 to 2015-16 in DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021-22/1034506207(1) dated 29.07.2021 and in the case of Mozart Global Furniture in DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/ ITA No. 249-252