Search: condonation of delay | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

30 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 30clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,255 Chennai1,158 Delhi1,051 Kolkata651 Bangalore491 Ahmedabad436 Pune393 Hyderabad391 Jaipur353 Patna231 Chandigarh190 Karnataka185 Nagpur155 Surat152 Lucknow137 Indore130 Raipur123 Amritsar122 Rajkot108 Visakhapatnam106 Cuttack71 Cochin62 Agra53 Panaji50 Calcutta49 SC41 Dehradun31 Guwahati30 Jodhpur27 Allahabad24 Varanasi22 Jabalpur21 Telangana21 Kerala5 Orissa5 Rajasthan5 Himachal Pradesh3 Ranchi3 Andhra Pradesh3 A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2 A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1 DIPAK MISRA R.K. AGRAWAL PRAFULLA C. PANT1 Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 733 Section 25026 Section 1422 Addition to Income17 Limitation/Time-bar11 Section 14410 Section 158B9 Section 1488 Section 10(26)

NIRUPAM ACHARJEE,SILCHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER. WARD-1, SILCHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 381/GTY/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Mar 2026AY 2009-10

30 days, with a direction to condone the delay.", "result": "Dismissed", "sections": ["154"], "issues": "Whether an appeal is maintainable before

SRI PICKLU PAUL,KARIMGANJ vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-SILCHAR, SILCHAR

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

ITA 195/GTY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati28 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250

Showing 1–20 of 30 · Page 1 of 2

8

Section 143(3)7

delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. The assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Shillong is not justified in dismissing the grounds taken by the Appellant before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, DIBRUGARH vs. M/S. ASSAM COMPANY INDIA LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, I.T.A. No.: 104/Gty/2010 for Assessment Year:

ITA 108/GTY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati12 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 14Section 250Section 7

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 3. As in the captioned appeals most of the issues raised by both the parties are common, therefore, as agreed by both the parties, the same are taken up together and are being disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 4. Brief facts

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2, DIBRUGARH vs. M/S. ASSAM COMPANY LIMITED, KOKATA

In the result, I.T.A. No.: 104/Gty/2010 for Assessment Year:

ITA 440/GTY/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati12 Dec 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 14Section 250Section 7

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 3. As in the captioned appeals most of the issues raised by both the parties are common, therefore, as agreed by both the parties, the same are taken up together and are being disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 4. Brief facts

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2, DIBRUGARH vs. M/S. ASSAM COMPANY LIMITED, KOKATA

In the result, I.T.A. No.: 104/Gty/2010 for Assessment Year:

ITA 183/GTY/2013[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati12 Dec 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 14Section 250Section 7

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 3. As in the captioned appeals most of the issues raised by both the parties are common, therefore, as agreed by both the parties, the same are taken up together and are being disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 4. Brief facts

M/S. ASSAM COMPANY INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, DIBRUGARH

In the result, I.T.A. No.: 104/Gty/2010 for Assessment Year:

ITA 119/GTY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati12 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 14Section 250Section 7

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 3. As in the captioned appeals most of the issues raised by both the parties are common, therefore, as agreed by both the parties, the same are taken up together and are being disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 4. Brief facts

M/S. ASSAM COMPANY INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, DIBRUGARH

In the result, I.T.A. No.: 104/Gty/2010 for Assessment Year:

ITA 121/GTY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati12 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 14Section 250Section 7

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 3. As in the captioned appeals most of the issues raised by both the parties are common, therefore, as agreed by both the parties, the same are taken up together and are being disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 4. Brief facts

M/S. ASSAM COMPANY INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, DIBRUGARH

In the result, I.T.A. No.: 104/Gty/2010 for Assessment Year:

ITA 123/GTY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati12 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 14Section 250Section 7

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 3. As in the captioned appeals most of the issues raised by both the parties are common, therefore, as agreed by both the parties, the same are taken up together and are being disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 4. Brief facts

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, DIBRUGARH vs. M/S. ASSAM COMPANY INDIA LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, I.T.A. No.: 104/Gty/2010 for Assessment Year:

ITA 109/GTY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati12 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 14Section 250Section 7

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 3. As in the captioned appeals most of the issues raised by both the parties are common, therefore, as agreed by both the parties, the same are taken up together and are being disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 4. Brief facts

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, DIBRUGARH vs. M/S. ASSAM COMPANY INDIA LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, I.T.A. No.: 104/Gty/2010 for Assessment Year:

ITA 161/GTY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati12 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 14Section 250Section 7

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 3. As in the captioned appeals most of the issues raised by both the parties are common, therefore, as agreed by both the parties, the same are taken up together and are being disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 4. Brief facts

M/S. ASSAM COMPANY INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, DIBRUGARH

In the result, I.T.A. No.: 104/Gty/2010 for Assessment Year:

ITA 120/GTY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati12 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 14Section 250Section 7

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 3. As in the captioned appeals most of the issues raised by both the parties are common, therefore, as agreed by both the parties, the same are taken up together and are being disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 4. Brief facts

ASSAM COMPANY INDIA LTD,KOLKATA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, DIBRUGARH

In the result, I.T.A. No.: 104/Gty/2010 for Assessment Year:

ITA 104/GTY/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati12 Dec 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 14Section 250Section 7

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 3. As in the captioned appeals most of the issues raised by both the parties are common, therefore, as agreed by both the parties, the same are taken up together and are being disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 4. Brief facts

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2, DIBRUGARH vs. M/S. ASSAM COMPANY LIMITED, KOKATA

In the result, I.T.A. No.: 104/Gty/2010 for Assessment Year:

ITA 12/GTY/2018[1986-87]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati12 Dec 2022AY 1986-87

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 14Section 250Section 7

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 3. As in the captioned appeals most of the issues raised by both the parties are common, therefore, as agreed by both the parties, the same are taken up together and are being disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 4. Brief facts

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI vs. THE ASSAM COOERATIVE APEX BANK LIMITED, GUWAHATI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 160/GTY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati28 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: The Hon'Ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Itat) Was On Or Before 31/05/2025. However, The Appeal Was Filed Before The Hon'Ble Itat, Guwahati, On 18/06/2025, Resulting A Delay Of 18 Days Due To The Following Reasons. Exceptional Workload Due To Time-Barring Assessments & Initial Budget Collection Monitoring (March 2025): The Period Immediately Preceding The Appeal

Section 250Section 40

delay is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 2. The present appeal arises from the order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”), dated 19.03.2025, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereafter “the Ld. CIT(A)]. 2.1 In this case

TORSA MACHINES LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 97/GTY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati21 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Him.

Section 144B(7)(ii)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 68

30,00,000/- has been made under Section 68 of the Act. It is seen that the Ld. AO passed an exparte order since there was no compliance by the assessee before him. I.T.A. No. 97/GTY/2025 Torsa Machines Ltd. 1.2 Aggrieved with this action, the assessee has approached the CIT(A), where also he could not succeed because allegedly

MAYURPLY INDUSTRIES PVT LTD.,HOOGHLY, WEST BENGAL vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 3, GUWAHATI, ASSAM

In the result IT(SS)A Nos

ITA 224/GTY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati24 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kaushik Roy, DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 253Section 253(5)

condone the delay by admitting the appeals for adjudication. We shall first take up IT(SS)A 1/GTY/2024 for A.Y. 2010-11. IT(SS)A 1/GTY/2024 for A.Y. 2010-11 03. First, we would take up ITA(SS)A No.1/GTY/2024 for A.Y. 2010-11. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee raised legal issue challenging the jurisdiction

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 2/GTY/2023[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Guwahati05 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44A

condone the impugned delay attributable to various procedural formalities and compilation of records. The case is now taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. The Revenue's first substantive grievance reads that the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting depreciation disallowance of ₹84,86,809/- made by the Assessing Officer in assessment order dated

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 38/GTY/2022[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Guwahati05 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44A

condone the impugned delay attributable to various procedural formalities and compilation of records. The case is now taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. The Revenue's first substantive grievance reads that the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting depreciation disallowance of ₹84,86,809/- made by the Assessing Officer in assessment order dated

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 37/GTY/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Guwahati05 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44A

condone the impugned delay attributable to various procedural formalities and compilation of records. The case is now taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. The Revenue's first substantive grievance reads that the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting depreciation disallowance of ₹84,86,809/- made by the Assessing Officer in assessment order dated

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 39/GTY/2022[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Guwahati05 Apr 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44A

condone the impugned delay attributable to various procedural formalities and compilation of records. The case is now taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. The Revenue's first substantive grievance reads that the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting depreciation disallowance of ₹84,86,809/- made by the Assessing Officer in assessment order dated