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.

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

Sorted by relevance

Chennai519Mumbai475Delhi406Kolkata270Pune241Hyderabad229Bangalore205Ahmedabad168Karnataka142Jaipur130Chandigarh117Nagpur72Surat70Raipur66Visakhapatnam64Lucknow61Panaji61Indore58Amritsar42Calcutta37Cuttack27Rajkot26Cochin24Guwahati20SC15Patna14Telangana12Dehradun8Varanasi7Jodhpur7Allahabad5Agra4Orissa4Jabalpur3Ranchi3Himachal Pradesh2Punjab & Haryana2A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Andhra Pradesh1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 26349Section 143(3)31Section 13123Section 142A11Addition to Income7Section 43B6Disallowance6Section 80P5Section 10B

THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKKODE, KOZHIKKODE vs. M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of

ITA 375/COCH/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

Section 131Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

55,05,222 9.00 8868510 3363288 201`3-14 35,27,174 100 98539000 37378490 3.3 It was submitted that the CIT(A), Kochi vide order dated 07/05/2015 deleted the additions proposed by the Assessing Officer. It was submitted that the CIT(A) vide order dated 12/05/2017 for the assessment years 2006-07 to 2012-13 had deleted

M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES,TRICHUR vs. THE DCIT(, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of

Showing 1–20 of 24 · Page 1 of 2

5
Section 139(1)5
Deduction4
Condonation of Delay4
ITA 495/COCH/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

Section 131Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

55,05,222 9.00 8868510 3363288 201`3-14 35,27,174 100 98539000 37378490 3.3 It was submitted that the CIT(A), Kochi vide order dated 07/05/2015 deleted the additions proposed by the Assessing Officer. It was submitted that the CIT(A) vide order dated 12/05/2017 for the assessment years 2006-07 to 2012-13 had deleted

M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES,TRICHUR vs. THE DCIT, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of

ITA 497/COCH/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

Section 131Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

55,05,222 9.00 8868510 3363288 201`3-14 35,27,174 100 98539000 37378490 3.3 It was submitted that the CIT(A), Kochi vide order dated 07/05/2015 deleted the additions proposed by the Assessing Officer. It was submitted that the CIT(A) vide order dated 12/05/2017 for the assessment years 2006-07 to 2012-13 had deleted

M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES,TRICHUR vs. THE DCIT, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of

ITA 498/COCH/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

Section 131Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

55,05,222 9.00 8868510 3363288 201`3-14 35,27,174 100 98539000 37378490 3.3 It was submitted that the CIT(A), Kochi vide order dated 07/05/2015 deleted the additions proposed by the Assessing Officer. It was submitted that the CIT(A) vide order dated 12/05/2017 for the assessment years 2006-07 to 2012-13 had deleted

M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES,TRICHUR vs. THE DCIT, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of

ITA 496/COCH/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

Section 131Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

55,05,222 9.00 8868510 3363288 201`3-14 35,27,174 100 98539000 37378490 3.3 It was submitted that the CIT(A), Kochi vide order dated 07/05/2015 deleted the additions proposed by the Assessing Officer. It was submitted that the CIT(A) vide order dated 12/05/2017 for the assessment years 2006-07 to 2012-13 had deleted

M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES,TRICHUR vs. THE DCIT, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of

ITA 499/COCH/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

Section 131Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

55,05,222 9.00 8868510 3363288 201`3-14 35,27,174 100 98539000 37378490 3.3 It was submitted that the CIT(A), Kochi vide order dated 07/05/2015 deleted the additions proposed by the Assessing Officer. It was submitted that the CIT(A) vide order dated 12/05/2017 for the assessment years 2006-07 to 2012-13 had deleted

THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKKODE, KOZHIKKODE vs. M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of

ITA 374/COCH/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

Section 131Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

55,05,222 9.00 8868510 3363288 201`3-14 35,27,174 100 98539000 37378490 3.3 It was submitted that the CIT(A), Kochi vide order dated 07/05/2015 deleted the additions proposed by the Assessing Officer. It was submitted that the CIT(A) vide order dated 12/05/2017 for the assessment years 2006-07 to 2012-13 had deleted

THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKKODE, KOZHIKKODE vs. M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of

ITA 376/COCH/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

Section 131Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

55,05,222 9.00 8868510 3363288 201`3-14 35,27,174 100 98539000 37378490 3.3 It was submitted that the CIT(A), Kochi vide order dated 07/05/2015 deleted the additions proposed by the Assessing Officer. It was submitted that the CIT(A) vide order dated 12/05/2017 for the assessment years 2006-07 to 2012-13 had deleted

THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKKODE, KOZHIKKODE vs. M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of

ITA 377/COCH/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

Section 131Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

55,05,222 9.00 8868510 3363288 201`3-14 35,27,174 100 98539000 37378490 3.3 It was submitted that the CIT(A), Kochi vide order dated 07/05/2015 deleted the additions proposed by the Assessing Officer. It was submitted that the CIT(A) vide order dated 12/05/2017 for the assessment years 2006-07 to 2012-13 had deleted

THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKKODE, KOZHIKKODE vs. M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of

ITA 378/COCH/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

Section 131Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

55,05,222 9.00 8868510 3363288 201`3-14 35,27,174 100 98539000 37378490 3.3 It was submitted that the CIT(A), Kochi vide order dated 07/05/2015 deleted the additions proposed by the Assessing Officer. It was submitted that the CIT(A) vide order dated 12/05/2017 for the assessment years 2006-07 to 2012-13 had deleted

THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKKODE, KOZHIKKODE vs. M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of

ITA 379/COCH/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

Section 131Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

55,05,222 9.00 8868510 3363288 201`3-14 35,27,174 100 98539000 37378490 3.3 It was submitted that the CIT(A), Kochi vide order dated 07/05/2015 deleted the additions proposed by the Assessing Officer. It was submitted that the CIT(A) vide order dated 12/05/2017 for the assessment years 2006-07 to 2012-13 had deleted

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

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

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

M/S. ASPINWALL & CO. LTD,COCHIN vs. THE DCIT, COCHIN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 277/COCH/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P. K. Bansal & Shri George George K.Assessment Year:2011- 12

Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(1)Section 263

condone the delay. 4. Ground Nos. 4 to 6 taken by the assessee relate to the merit of the issue in respect of which the CIT has invoked the jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. We noted that the CIT in this case has not decided the issue on merit but has simply set aside the order

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

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

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