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.

176 results for “disallowance”+ Condonation of Delayclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,098Chennai882Delhi736Kolkata602Bangalore401Pune372Ahmedabad346Hyderabad295Jaipur258Cochin176Chandigarh157Surat135Indore127Visakhapatnam116Lucknow116Raipur106Nagpur97Amritsar89Cuttack83Rajkot78Panaji65Patna49Agra31Jodhpur28Guwahati20Dehradun12Ranchi12SC12Jabalpur10Allahabad8Varanasi6

Key Topics

Section 80P170Deduction67Section 143(3)60Disallowance45Section 25043Section 139(1)40Section 80P(2)(a)36Condonation of Delay35Addition to Income28Section 143(1)

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)

disallowing the certificate issued by the statutory authority under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. E. The CIT(Appeal) went wrong in finding that appellant is not eligible for deduction for the interest income received u/s 80P(2)(d) . The issues covered in favour of the appellant of the decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of Principal

Showing 1–20 of 176 · Page 1 of 9

...
25
Section 80P(2)(d)22
Section 5617

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

condoned. 3. The Ld.AR further submitted that, there is delay of 1425 days in filing appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). Page 7 of 16 4. It is submitted that in Form 35, the assessee stated the reason for the delay caused in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), as under: “1. The assessment order dated dated

LAURA ANN,SINGAPORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION,TRIVANDRUM, TRIVANDRUM

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

ITA 262/COCH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CA

disallowing the claim that the Page 2 of 4 lands are agricultural land and taxed the same under the long term capital gains. As against the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) with a delay of 39 days but not filed any application to condone

M/S ROYAL INDIAN HOLDINGS LIMITED,KOCHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER CORPORATE WARD 2(2), KOCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 878/COCH/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Paulson, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154

disallowance of Rs.12,93,006 u/s. 14A of the Act. 4. The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of about 155 days. The assessee submitted before the CIT(A) requesting for condonation

THE VELLATHOOVAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,IDUKKI vs. ITO, WARD 1 & TPS, THODUPUZHA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 848/COCH/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri C.A. Jojo, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 80P

disallowing the claim for deduction u/s. 80P of the Act on the ground that the return of income was not fled within the due date specified under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Act. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A) with a delay of 1268 days. The appellant filed a petition seeking condonation

THRISSUR DISTRICT POLICE CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THRISSUR

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

ITA 409/COCH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri M.Ramdas, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. A.R
Section 154Section 250Section 253(5)

condoning the delay of 96 days in filing both these appeals before this Tribunal and accordinglywe admit the same for adjudication. 4. Thebrief fact of the case are that the Assesseebeing an employees' co-operative society formed for the welfare of employees of Kerala Police department of Thrissur District and is registered under Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969.The Assessee

THRISSUR DISTRICT POLICE CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THRISSUR

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

ITA 408/COCH/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri M.Ramdas, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. A.R
Section 154Section 250Section 253(5)

condoning the delay of 96 days in filing both these appeals before this Tribunal and accordinglywe admit the same for adjudication. 4. Thebrief fact of the case are that the Assesseebeing an employees' co-operative society formed for the welfare of employees of Kerala Police department of Thrissur District and is registered under Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969.The Assessee

PAIRPRA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO, WARD-1 & TPS, THODUPUZHA

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

ITA 768/COCH/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm Assessment Year: 2021-22 Paipra Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant 11/266, Manary P.O., Ernakulam 686673 [Pan: Aaaap7650E] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps .......... Respondent Thodupuzha Appellant By: Ms. Swathy S., Advocate Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 28.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.06.2025

For Appellant: Ms. Swathy S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

disallowed the claim for deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Act in respect of interest income earned from other than co-operative societies. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order refused to condone the delay

VALLACHIRA SERVICE CO OP SOCIETY LTD NO 527,VALLACHIRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THRISSUR

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

ITA 962/COCH/2024[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Apr 2025AY 2023-2024

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Sri.M.Ramdas, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80P

disallowance of claim of deduction u/s.80P of the Act. 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows: 2 ITA No.962/Coch/2024. Vallachira SC.B Limited. The assessee is a primary agricultural credit society. For the assessment year 2023-2024, the due date for filing the return of income was on or before 30.11.2023 u/s.139(1) of the Act. However, the return

MALLELIL INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, THIRUVALLA

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

ITA 787/COCH/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2015-16 Mallelil Industries Pvt. Ltd. .......... Appellant Attachakkal P.O., Pathanamthitta 689691 [Pan: Aafcm0761Q] Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Thiruvalla .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Surendran, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2025 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 24.08.2022 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Company Incorporated Under The Provisions Of Companies Act, 1956. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Manufacture Of Rock Aggregates & Running A Quarry. The Return Of Income For Ay 2015-16 Was Fled On 22.09.2015 Declaring Income Of Rs. 2,54,10,720/-. Survey

For Appellant: Shri Surendran, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 133ASection 263Section 271(1)(c)

disallowance of excess depreciation of Rs. 11,80,715/-. The AO also initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income in the remand proceedings, since the return of income was revised consequent to detection made by the department during the course of survey proceedings based on the direction of the ld. PCIT

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

condonation of delay, which reads as under: - “1, Meera U Pillai, Principal Officer, The Aroor Central Service Co-operative Bank, Aroor, Cherthala, Alappuzha 688534, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as follows:- 1. I am the appellant in the accompanying appeal and petitioner in the above petition for stay. I am well acquainted with the facts of the case

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

condonation of delay, which reads as under: - “1, Meera U Pillai, Principal Officer, The Aroor Central Service Co-operative Bank, Aroor, Cherthala, Alappuzha 688534, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as follows:- 1. I am the appellant in the accompanying appeal and petitioner in the above petition for stay. I am well acquainted with the facts of the case

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)

disallowing an amount of Rs. 1,55,12,372/- under 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

OTTAPALAM TALUK PRAVASI WELFARE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,PALAKKAD vs. ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

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

ITA 588/COCH/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Assessment Year: 2019-20 Ottapalam Taluk Pravasi Welfare .......... Appellant Co-Operative Society Ltd. P.O. Mezhathur, Ottapalam Palakkad 679534 [Pan: Aaao7715K] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward -2, Palakkd Appellant By: Shri Alan Dev, Advocate Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 17.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.12.2024

For Appellant: Shri Alan Dev, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 80ASection 80P

delay in filing the return of income was condoned by the learned Pr. CIT u/s. 119(2)(b) 3 Ottapalam Taluk Pravasi Welfare Co-operative Society Ltd. of the Act vide order dated 29.11.2024 and, therefore, it is prayed that the appeal be allowed by directing the Assessing Officer to allow the deduction claimed

CHAVAKKAD P C A R D BANK LIMITED,GURUVAYUR vs. ITO, WARD-1 & TPS, THRISSUR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 621/COCH/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin18 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(i)

disallowing the claim for deduction u/s. 80P of the Act by holding that the assessee is not a co-operative society but a co-operative bank. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A) with a delay of 385 days. The assessee filed petition praying for condonation

CHAVAKKAD P C A R D BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. ITO, WARD-1 & TPS, THRISSUR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 622/COCH/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin18 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(i)

disallowing the claim for deduction u/s. 80P of the Act by holding that the assessee is not a co-operative society but a co-operative bank. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A) with a delay of 385 days. The assessee filed petition praying for condonation

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

M/S TILECO,KOZHIKODE vs. ITO, WARD 2(3), KOZHIKODE

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

ITA 320/COCH/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Ms.Jinu Pookkat, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 250Section 271Section 40

condoning the delay in filing the second appeal before this Hon'ble Tribunal. 2: The Petitioner/Appellant had filed its Rol for AY 2012.13 on 15.05.2013 declaring a Net Income of Rs. 112,750/=: The said Return was taken up for scrutiny and as per orders dated 26.03.2015, the assessing authority completed the assessment where he resorted to disallowance

K.K.BUILDERS,KANNUR vs. DCIT, KOZHIKKODE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 234/COCH/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Pavan Ved, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153DSection 154Section 69C

condone the delay. Appeal dismissed on account of delay and latches. ITA No. 234/Coch/2023 – AY : 2009-10 8. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a partnership firm engaged in the business of real estate, execution of civil contracts and running of bars and restaurants. Search and seizure operations were conducted

K.K BUILDERS,KANNUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, CALICUT. , CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 759/COCH/2023[AY 2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Pavan Ved, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153DSection 154Section 69C

condone the delay. Appeal dismissed on account of delay and latches. ITA No. 234/Coch/2023 – AY : 2009-10 8. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a partnership firm engaged in the business of real estate, execution of civil contracts and running of bars and restaurants. Search and seizure operations were conducted