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.

2 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 54Fclear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai68Mumbai38Bangalore34Hyderabad28Indore25Delhi19Jaipur17Kolkata13Pune13Ahmedabad12Lucknow7Patna7Visakhapatnam5Chandigarh4Calcutta3Cuttack3Nagpur2Cochin2Surat2A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Amritsar1Agra1Punjab & Haryana1Rajkot1SC1

Key Topics

Section 54F5Section 2503Section 143(3)2Section 80C2Exemption2Deduction2Addition to Income2Condonation of Delay2

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

delayed by 86 days, which was condoned by the tribunal. The assessee had incurred expenses for making a purchased flat habitable, claiming it as part of the cost of the new asset under Section 54F

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

54F as the appellant had allegedly failed to adduce proof in support of the claim made. 4. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. 5. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. 6. At the outset we found that