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.

52 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 27clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai914Delhi897Mumbai876Kolkata599Pune473Bangalore419Hyderabad306Ahmedabad270Jaipur251Nagpur177Karnataka161Chandigarh153Raipur121Surat96Amritsar95Lucknow88Indore83Visakhapatnam71Panaji69Cuttack55Calcutta52Rajkot50Patna45Cochin34SC33Telangana21Varanasi17Allahabad17Dehradun13Agra12Guwahati11Jabalpur10Jodhpur9Kerala5Rajasthan4Orissa4Ranchi3A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2Andhra Pradesh2DIPAK MISRA R.K. AGRAWAL PRAFULLA C. PANT1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Gauhati1Himachal Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 260A13Section 26312Section 69C10Section 143(3)10Section 12A10Condonation of Delay8Addition to Income7Section 14A5Exemption

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 2 KOLKATA vs. SEVEN STAR STEELS LTD

Appeal stands dismissed and the

ITAT/43/2025HC Calcutta05 May 2025

Bench: :

Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143ASection 153ASection 245B(4)Section 260A

sections 139(5) and 119(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act read with Circular No. 9 of 2015 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes to contend that the appellant ought to have made an application for condonation of delay, and sought permission from the Central Board of Direct Taxes, before filing the revised returns beyond the statutory

Showing 1–20 of 52 · Page 1 of 3

5
Limitation/Time-bar5
Section 271(1)(c)4
Section 80G4

KPC MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL), KOL-1

ITAT/107/2015HC Calcutta19 Mar 2025

Bench: : The Hon’Ble The Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam

Section 260ASection 271(1)(c)

delay was condoned. Thereafter, the review applications were taken up for consideration and it was found that since a connected appeal arising out of the same order passed by the learned Tribunal was already admitted, the three other appeals could not have been dismissed on the ground that no substantial question of law arises and this, in the opinion

KPC MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) KOL-1

ITAT/105/2015HC Calcutta19 Mar 2025

Bench: : The Hon’Ble The Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam

Section 260ASection 271(1)(c)

delay was condoned. Thereafter, the review applications were taken up for consideration and it was found that since a connected appeal arising out of the same order passed by the learned Tribunal was already admitted, the three other appeals could not have been dismissed on the ground that no substantial question of law arises and this, in the opinion

KPC MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL), KOL-1

ITAT/108/2015HC Calcutta19 Mar 2025

Bench: : The Hon’Ble The Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam

Section 260ASection 271(1)(c)

delay was condoned. Thereafter, the review applications were taken up for consideration and it was found that since a connected appeal arising out of the same order passed by the learned Tribunal was already admitted, the three other appeals could not have been dismissed on the ground that no substantial question of law arises and this, in the opinion

KALI PADIP CHAUDHARI FOUNDATION vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL), KOL-1

ITA/21/2015HC Calcutta19 Mar 2025

Bench: : The Hon’Ble The Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam

Section 260ASection 271(1)(c)

delay was condoned. Thereafter, the review applications were taken up for consideration and it was found that since a connected appeal arising out of the same order passed by the learned Tribunal was already admitted, the three other appeals could not have been dismissed on the ground that no substantial question of law arises and this, in the opinion

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATA vs. GANESH STEEL AND ALLOYS LTD

ITAT/130/2025HC Calcutta22 Jul 2025

Bench: : The Hon’Ble The Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) Date: 22Nd July, 2025 Appearance: Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. …For Appellant

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 260ASection 69C

condonation of delay being IA No: GA/1/2025 is allowed. The appellant/revenue is aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal by which the order passed by the CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi dated 3 24.8.2023 was set aside. The assessee filed the return of income on 28.9.2012 declaring the total income of rupees Nil. The return was processed under

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ASANSOL vs. M/S EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITAT/153/2022HC Calcutta27 Sept 2022

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Supratim Bhattacharya Date : September 27, 2022. Appearance: Ms. Smita Das De, Adv. … For Appellant Mr. Rajeev Kumar Agarwal, Adv. …For Respondent. Ga/1/2022 The Court :- We Have Heard Ms. Smita Das De, Learned Standing Counsel For The Appellant & Mr. Rajeev Kumar Agarwal, Learned Counsel For The Respondent. There Is A Delay Of 511 Days In Filing The Appeal. On Perusal Of The Application We Are Satisfied That Sufficient Cause Has Been Shown For Not Being Able To Prefer The Appeal Within The Period Of Limitation. The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Condoned. Accordingly, The Application For Condonation Of Delay Is Allowed.

Section 260ASection 28Section 41

27, 2022. Appearance: Ms. Smita Das De, Adv. … for appellant Mr. Rajeev Kumar Agarwal, Adv. …for respondent. GA/1/2022 The Court :- We have heard Ms. Smita Das De, learned standing Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Rajeev Kumar Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent. There is a delay of 511 days in filing the appeal. On perusal of the application

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ASANSOL vs. MANINDRA MOHAN MAZUMDAR

ITAT/27/2023HC Calcutta15 Mar 2023

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Section 2ASection 7A

condonation of delay is allowed and disposed of. In Re : MAT 27 of 2023 The first respondent filed writ petition No. 24257 of 2012 challenging the order dated 20th March, 2012 passed by the third respondent in the writ petition under Section

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KOLKATA vs. ANANDA BAZAR PATRIKA PVT LTD

Accordingly the appeal ITAT/173/2021 fails and is dismissed

ITAT/173/2021HC Calcutta24 Feb 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 32(1)(iia)

condone the delay. ITAT/173/2021 This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated August 9, 2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “B” Bench (Tribunal) in ITA No.1121/Kol/2007 for the assessment year 2003-04. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-9,KOLKATA vs. MANJU OSATWAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and

ITAT/96/2021HC Calcutta11 Feb 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

For Appellant: Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Swapna Das, Adv
Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 180Section 182Section 260ASection 263

condonation of delay stands disposed of. ITAT No. 96 of 2021 4. This appeal by the revenue filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (the Act for brevity) is directed against the order dated 15th January, 2020 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “B” Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) in ITA No. 707/Kol/2019 for the assessment year

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATA vs. M/S SETHIA OIL INDUSTRIES LTD

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the

ITAT/16/2021HC Calcutta16 Jun 2022

Bench: : The Hon’Ble The Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 12Th May, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Bhaskar Prasad Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Abhradip Maity, Adv. …For Appellant Mr. Rahul Dhanuka, Adv. …For Respondent The Court : - Heard Learned Counsel On Either Side. There Is A Delay Of 384 Days In Filing This Appeal. We Have Perused The Affidavit Filed In Support Of The Condone Delay Petition & Find Sufficient Cause Has Been Shown For Not Preferring The Appeal Within The Period Of Limitation. The Application Is Allowed & The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Condoned. The Revenue Has Filed This Appeal Under Section 35G Of The Central Excise Act, Challenging The Order Passed By The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal, East Zonal Bench, Kolkata Dated 17.12.2019. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Consideration :- (I) Whether The Learned Tribunal Erred In Not Holding That Availing Credit By The Respondent Cannot Be Substantive Right Since The

Section 2Section 35G

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The revenue has filed this appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, challenging the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Tribunal, East Zonal Bench, Kolkata dated 17.12.2019. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration :- (i) Whether the Learned Tribunal erred in not holding

PRINCIPAL COMM OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 1, KOLKATA vs. M/S BASIL INTERNATINAL LTD

The appeal stands disposed of on the low tax effect and the

ITAT/13/2018HC Calcutta05 Sept 2022

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Supratim Bhattacharya Date : September 5, 2022. Appearance: Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. … For Appellant Ga/1/2018(Ga/200/2018) The Court : We Have Heard Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Learned Standing Counsel Appearing For The Appellant. There Is A Delay Of 523 Days In Filing This Appeal. Though Notice Has Not Been Served On The Respondent Assessee, The Learned Standing Counsel Has Reported That The Case Will Not Be Pursued By The Department On Account Of The Low Tax Effect, We Exercise Discretion & Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal. Accordingly, The Application Is Allowed.

Section 153ASection 260ASection 27(1)(c)

condone the delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, the application is allowed. ITAT/13/2018 This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act for brevity) is directed against the common order dated 24th Februar7y, 2016 2 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “A” Bench, Kolkata (the Tribunal

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATA vs. M/S K M KHADIM AND CO

ITAT/148/2023HC Calcutta17 Jul 2023

Bench: : The Hon’Ble The Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 17Th July, 2023 Appearance : Ms. Smita Das De, Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. …For Appellant The Court : This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.12.2022 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Kolkata (The Tribunal) In Ita/278/Kol/2022 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Consideration : 1. Whether On The Facts Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Tribunal Was Justified In Quashing The Order Under Section 263 Of The Said Act Ignoring The Fact That The Assessing Officer In His Order Under Section 143[3] Read With Section 263 Dated 23.12.2019 Concluded That Rs.3,63,122/- Should Be Added As

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 263

27 days in filing the appeal. We have perused the affidavit filed in support of the petition and we find sufficient cause has been shown for not preferring the appeal within the period of limitation. Accordingly, the application is allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The short issue which falls for consideration is whether the assumption

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5 KOLKATA vs. PREMIER TIE UP PVT LTD

ITAT/81/2022HC Calcutta26 Sept 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA

For Respondent: Mr. Dhruba Ghosh, Adv
Section 34Section 36(1)Section 36(2)

delaying a decision on such application cannot midway turn around and decide not to pursue the challenge application, and then prefer an independent application under Section 14 of the Act before the Court, basically on the same ground raised in the former, urging that de jure inability of the arbitrator disqualifies him to continue proceedings. The learned Judge was right

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. ISG TRADERS LTD

Accordingly, the appeal fails and dismissed

ITAT/143/2022HC Calcutta12 Sept 2022

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Supratim Bhattacharya Date : September 12, 2022. Appearance: Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Adv. … For Appellant Mr. Moloy Dhar, Adv. …For Respondent The Court : Heard Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Learned Standing Counsel For The Appellant & Mr. Moloy Dhar, Advocate Learned Advocate For The Respondent. There Is A Delay Of 559 Days In Filing The Appeal. Though The Explanation Offered Is Not Fully Satisfactory, Since We Have Suggested That The Appeal Itslef Can Be Heard & Submissions Were Heard On The Merits Of The Matter We Exercise Discretion & Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal. The Appeal Filed By The Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 5Th June, 2020 Passed By The Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “B” Bench Kolkata In Ita No. 1610/Kol/2019 For The Assessment Year 2012-13.

Section 14ASection 260A

condone the delay in filing the appeal. The appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act (the Act) is directed against the order dated 5th June, 2020 passed by the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “B” Bench Kolkata in ITA No. 1610/Kol/2019 for the assessment year 2012-13. 2 The revenue has raised the following

CIT (EXEMPTION) , KOLKATA vs. HARNARAYAN RAJDULARI DEVI TAPARIA - CHARITABALE TRUST

ITA/111/2019HC Calcutta01 Jul 2024

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

Section 12ASection 12A(1)Section 2Section 2(15)Section 80G

27 A. F. R. IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX) ORIGINAL SIDE ITA/111/2019 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), KOLKATA VS HARNARAYAN RAJDULARI DEVI TAPARIA CHARITABLE TRUST BEFORE : THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR GUPTA Date : 1s July, 2024. Appearance: Ms. Smita Das De, Advocate … for the appellant

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 3 KOLKATA vs. M/S. BRITANIA INDUSTRIES LTD

ITAT/111/2019HC Calcutta25 Aug 2022

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

Section 12ASection 12A(1)Section 2Section 2(15)Section 80G

27 A. F. R. IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX) ORIGINAL SIDE ITA/111/2019 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), KOLKATA VS HARNARAYAN RAJDULARI DEVI TAPARIA CHARITABLE TRUST BEFORE : THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR GUPTA Date : 1s July, 2024. Appearance: Ms. Smita Das De, Advocate … for the appellant

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5 KOLKATA vs. RAGHVENDRA MOHTA

The appeal is dismissed and the substantial questions of

ITAT/51/2025HC Calcutta05 May 2025

Bench: : The Hon'Ble The Chief Justice T.S Sivagnanam -A N D- Hon'Ble Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) Date : 5Th May, 2025.

Section 120Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 68Section 69C

delay has been properly explained the same is condoned. The application is allowed. This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated 8.4.2024 passed by the Income Tax Appellate tribunal “B” Bench, Kolkata (the Tribunal) in ITA/2416/Kol/2017 for the assessment year 2014-15. The revenue

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MUKESH SARAOGI (HUF)

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/76/2021HC Calcutta14 Jun 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

27. It is submitted that the assumption of jurisdiction by the Commissioner under Section 263 of the Act is unsustainable and the order is in violation of the principles of natural justice as even at the stage of issuance of show cause notice the Commissioner had pre-decided the issue. Furthermore, the allegation against the assessing officer is that

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-12, KOLKATA vs. MUKTA AGARWAL

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/44/2020HC Calcutta14 Jun 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

27. It is submitted that the assumption of jurisdiction by the Commissioner under Section 263 of the Act is unsustainable and the order is in violation of the principles of natural justice as even at the stage of issuance of show cause notice the Commissioner had pre-decided the issue. Furthermore, the allegation against the assessing officer is that