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.

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

Sorted by relevance

Chennai3,577Mumbai3,477Delhi2,793Kolkata1,869Pune1,594Bangalore1,551Ahmedabad1,170Hyderabad1,100Jaipur839Patna693Surat537Chandigarh501Nagpur451Indore405Raipur398Cochin373Visakhapatnam370Lucknow339Amritsar307Karnataka285Rajkot276Cuttack231Panaji158Agra128Dehradun96Guwahati86Calcutta82Jodhpur67SC61Ranchi52Jabalpur50Allahabad48Telangana45Varanasi36Kerala22Rajasthan9Orissa9Andhra Pradesh8Himachal Pradesh5Punjab & Haryana4A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2VIKRAMAJIT SEN SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1Gauhati1R.M. LODHA ANIL R. DAVE1DIPAK MISRA R.K. AGRAWAL PRAFULLA C. PANT1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1

Key Topics

Section 260A41Section 26339Condonation of Delay24Addition to Income19Limitation/Time-bar15Section 6814Section 143(3)14Section 12A10Section 10

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL -1, KOLKATA vs. M/S. INDIAN ROADWAYS CORPORATION LTD.

ITAT/62/2020HC Calcutta08 Feb 2021

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL, CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING),HON'BLE JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA ROY

For Respondent: Mr. Atarup Banerjee
Section 5

7. At the time of admission of the instant appeal Hon’ble Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court framed the following two substantial questions of law which are as follows: i) Whether a court of law in a case where the petitioner seeks condonation of delay on the ground of his illness and the application is backed

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATA vs. M/S Y R TRADERS PVT LTD

ITAT/198/2023HC Calcutta17 Nov 2023

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

Section 197

Showing 1–20 of 82 · Page 1 of 5

9
Section 43B7
Section 53(1)(i)6
Exemption6
Section 197(17)
Section 264

condone the delay for more than one year and three months and the applications being beyond the prescribed period were not entertained. 7 8. Notwithstanding the aforesaid, as and by way of a passing remark he had observed by placing reliance on Section

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATA vs. ASISH KUMAR GHOSH

ITAT/73/2021HC Calcutta01 Apr 2022

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 1St April, 2022 Appearance :-

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 68

7 of 2021, which was admitted on 20th January, 2021 after condoning the delay of 400 days in filing the appeal. Before the Tribunal, the assessee had filed MA 224/Kolkata/2019 seeking certain clarification in the order passed by the Tribunal dated 2nd August, 2019 deleting the addition of unexplained cash credit under Section

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1 KOLKATA vs. ASISH KUMAR GHOSH

ITA/2/2021HC Calcutta01 Apr 2022

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 1St April, 2022 Appearance :-

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 68

7 of 2021, which was admitted on 20th January, 2021 after condoning the delay of 400 days in filing the appeal. Before the Tribunal, the assessee had filed MA 224/Kolkata/2019 seeking certain clarification in the order passed by the Tribunal dated 2nd August, 2019 deleting the addition of unexplained cash credit under Section

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

7 “The counsel appearing for the Department relied on 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

M/S SHEO SHAKTI COKE INDUSTRIES vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 37, KOLKATA

ITAT/2/2022HC Calcutta08 Apr 2022

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

Section 5

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the 1963 Act) for condoning the delay in filing the Review Application being RVW 2 of 2022. The Review Application arises out of judgment and order dated 19th August, 2019 passed in WP.CT 153 of 2019 by which a judicial review in the form of a writ petition

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -4 , KOLKATA vs. M/S. SHELTER PROJECT LTD

ITAT/60/2020HC Calcutta04 Feb 2022

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

For Appellant: Mr. S. N. Dutta, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv
Section 2(47)Section 2(47)(v)Section 260ASection 53A

condonation of delay stands allowed. Re: ITAT/60/2020 We have perused this appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961(the Act) as directed against the order dated 17th October, 2018 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, A Bench, Kolkata in ITA No.737/Kol/2014 for the assessment year 2009-10. The revenue has raised the following substantial question

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, KOLKATA vs. LONG VIEW TEA CO. LTD.

ITAT/237/2018HC Calcutta03 Feb 2022

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam A N D The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : February 3, 2022. [Via Video Conference] Appearance : Mr. Asok Bhowmik, Adv. … For The Appellant Mr. J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Soumya Kejriwal, Adv. Mr. Anand Agarwal, Adv. ..For The Respondent The Court : We Have Heard Mr. Asok Bhowmik, Learned Standing Counsel Appearing For The Appellant/Revenue & Mr. J.P. Khaitan, Learned Senior Counsel Duly Assisted By Mr. Soumya Kejriwal & Mr. Anand Agarwal, Learned Counsel For The Respondent/Assessee.

Section 260ASection 263

7 & 8 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX) ORIGINAL SIDE IA NO.GA/2/2018 (Old No. GA/2110/2018) In ITAT/237/2018 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – 2, KOLKATA VS. M/S. LONG VIEW TEA CO. LTD. IA NO.GA/1/2018 (Old No. GA/2109/2018) In ITAT/237/2018 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – 2, KOLKATA VS. M/S. LONG VIEW TEA CO. LTD. BEFORE

LABDHAN MERCHANTS PVT. LTD & ANR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD1(4) KOLKATA & ORS

ITAT/339/2017HC Calcutta04 Feb 2022

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

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 260ASection 263Section 68

7 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX) ORIGINAL SIDE IA No. GA 1 of 2017 (Old No. GA 3504 of 2017) in ITAT 339 of 2017 LABDHAN MERCHANTS PVT. LTD. & ANR. VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(4), KOLKATA & ORS. AND IA No. GA 2 of 2017 (Old No. GA 3507 of 2017) in ITAT

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATA vs. M/S SOVA ISPAT LTD

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

ITAT/218/2023HC Calcutta16 Oct 2023

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

Section 260A

condonation of delay is allowed. This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated 19.08.2020 2 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “A” Bench, Kolkata in I.T.A. No.2067/Kol/2019 for the assessment year 2012-13. The respondent has raised the following substantial questions of law :- i) Whether

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. M/S KESORAM INDUSTRIES LTD

ITAT/232/2022HC Calcutta05 Dec 2022

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

Section 260ASection 37

condonation of delay being IA No.GA/1/2022 is allowed. This appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act, for brevity) is against the order dated 21st October, 2020 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘Virtual Court-A’ Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) in ITA Nos.1195 & 1776/Kol/2019 for the assessment year 2011-12. The revenue has raised

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 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 1 KOLKATA vs. SRI RAJNISH AGARWAL

Accordingly, the applications for condonation of delay are dismissed and

ITAT/72/2023HC Calcutta24 Apr 2023

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

Section 260A

7) and Ms. Swapna Das, learned Advocate, assisted by Mr. Siddhartha Das, Advocate appearing for the respondents. These appeals have been filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) challenging the order dated 28th February, 2020 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “C” Bench Kolkata in a batch of nine matters

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 1 KOLKATA vs. SMT SEEMA AGARWAL

Accordingly, the applications for condonation of delay are dismissed and

ITAT/84/2023HC Calcutta24 Apr 2023

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

Section 260A

7) and Ms. Swapna Das, learned Advocate, assisted by Mr. Siddhartha Das, Advocate appearing for the respondents. These appeals have been filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) challenging the order dated 28th February, 2020 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “C” Bench Kolkata in a batch of nine matters

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 1 KOLKATA vs. SMT SHALINI AGARWAL

Accordingly, the applications for condonation of delay are dismissed and

ITAT/83/2023HC Calcutta24 Apr 2023

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

Section 260A

7) and Ms. Swapna Das, learned Advocate, assisted by Mr. Siddhartha Das, Advocate appearing for the respondents. These appeals have been filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) challenging the order dated 28th February, 2020 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “C” Bench Kolkata in a batch of nine matters

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

MA/S SKYSCRAPER PROJECTS PVT LTD. vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10(2), KOLKATA

ITAT/141/2025HC Calcutta28 Jul 2025

Bench: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS)

For Appellant: Mr. Anil Kumar Dugar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Advocate
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 43B

condone delay application, GA 1 of 2025, is allowed. The issue involved in the instant case is whether the learned Tribunal was justified in setting aside the order passed by the Appellate authority namely, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal - 4), Kolkata [CIT(A)] and remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer to consider whether addition is required to be made

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 in filing the review applications is condoned. Now, we move on to whether to consider the review applications. In the review applications we are required to consider as to whether the review applicant was able to point out an error apparent on the face of the judgment and order dated 7th August, 2015. Admittedly, the connected appeal arising

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 in filing the review applications is condoned. Now, we move on to whether to consider the review applications. In the review applications we are required to consider as to whether the review applicant was able to point out an error apparent on the face of the judgment and order dated 7th August, 2015. Admittedly, the connected appeal arising

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 in filing the review applications is condoned. Now, we move on to whether to consider the review applications. In the review applications we are required to consider as to whether the review applicant was able to point out an error apparent on the face of the judgment and order dated 7th August, 2015. Admittedly, the connected appeal arising