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.

7 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 55clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai519Mumbai487Delhi409Kolkata282Bangalore209Ahmedabad143Karnataka142Jaipur127Hyderabad127Pune110Chandigarh103Nagpur72Raipur64Lucknow63Surat63Panaji61Indore56Amritsar42Rajkot37Calcutta37Visakhapatnam21Cuttack16Patna15SC15Guwahati12Telangana12Dehradun8Cochin7Varanasi7Jodhpur5Orissa4Allahabad4Ranchi3Agra3Jabalpur2Punjab & Haryana2Himachal Pradesh2Andhra Pradesh1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)7Section 43B6Section 80P5Section 10B5Section 139(1)5Section 404Section 40A(3)4Addition to Income4Disallowance

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

4
Section 143(2)3
Deduction3
Business Income2

DCIT, TRIVANDRUM vs. BRAHMOS AEROSPACE( THIRUVANANTHAPURAM) LTD, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal filedby

ITA 742/COCH/2019[2002-03]Status: HeardITAT Cochin23 Feb 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ramit Kochar, Am Deputy Commissioner Brahmos Aerospace Of Income Tax, (Thiruvananthapuram) Ltd., Circle-1(1), V. Chackai, Thiruvananthapuram Beach Post, Kerala Tiruvananthapuram, Kerala Pan – Aabck2217K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Smt. Jamunna Devi, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Abraham Joseph Markos, Adv
Section 139(1)Section 139(3)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 80

55,033/-. The said return of income was accompanied with the provisional financial statements , as the audited accounts were not available by that time nor tax-audit report was filed while filing of return of income. It is an admitted position that the assessee’saccounts were audited by the statutory auditory on 5th February 2003 which was much later beyond

SHEEJAMOL SAINABABEEVI ALIYARUKUNJU,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the stay petition is dismissed as infrutuous

ITA 758/COCH/2023[AY 2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Dec 2024

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Jaikrishnan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Girly Albert, Snr.DR
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, by make an addition of Rs 76,74,400 to the total income as the alleged unexplained investment in the residential building. Hence this appeal” 3. The assessee also filed a condonation application to condone the delay of 31 days in filing this appeal and enclosed an affidavit in support

THE BANK EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY,KOZHIKODE vs. ITO, WARD 1(3), KOZHIKODE

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

ITA 169/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR
Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

55 days in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. The appellant filed a condonation petition along with an Affidavit of the Secretary of the appellant, stating therein the reasons for the belated filing of this appeal. 2.1 On a careful perusal of the reasons stated in the affidavit, I am satisfied that there is reasonable cause in belated filing

THE ITO,, ALAPPUZHA vs. M/S.EXTRAWEAVE P. LTD, ALAPPUZHA

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

ITA 448/COCH/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Extraweave Pvt. Ltd. Arattukulangara Complex 264B/Cmc 1 Vs. A.N. Puram, Alapuzha 688011 Sakteeswara Junction Cherthala 688524 Pan – Aabce5438L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 10BSection 10B(3)Section 143(2)Section 195Section 195(6)Section 40

55,78,022/- is deleted.” 5. From the above order of the CIT(A) we observed that he has done a good reasoned order and it does not require any interference and the above findings of the learned CIT(A) is supported by the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vijay Ship Breaking Corporation

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

55,945/-. The AO also made an addition on account of discrepancy between the interest income as per 26AS and amount credited to P & L Account of Rs. 15,69,364/-. 3. Being aggrieved by the above additions, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A) who vide the impugned order allowed the depreciation in respect of intangible asset

M/S KANAKA POLYPACK PRIVATE LIMITED,ALUVA vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), KOCHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 876/COCH/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Mar 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year :2018-19 M/S. Kanaka Polypack Private Limited, Acit, Vs. Xvi, Keezhmad Panchayat, Corporate Circle - 1(1), Ashokapuram,Aluva, Kochi – 682 018. Ernakulam District, Kerala – 683 101. Pan :Aafck 1498 J Assessee Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Manu Kurian, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

condone the delay of 12 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication 5. In so far as the question whether the employees contribution to Provident Fund and Employees State Insurance which the employer deducts and pays over to the concerned authorities beyond the date prescribed for payment of such contribution but nevertheless the contribution has been