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.

23 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 84clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai460Delhi333Kolkata322Mumbai310Bangalore158Hyderabad153Ahmedabad137Pune135Karnataka127Jaipur121Chandigarh102Surat79Visakhapatnam75Nagpur71Indore50Calcutta41Cuttack37Panaji32Lucknow31Cochin29Raipur26Guwahati23Kerala17Agra17Amritsar17Rajkot17Patna15SC13Jabalpur10Allahabad8Telangana6Ranchi5Rajasthan4Varanasi3Dehradun2Jodhpur2Orissa1Andhra Pradesh1DIPAK MISRA R.K. AGRAWAL PRAFULLA C. PANT1Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 8029Section 143(3)24Section 80I23Section 139(1)18Section 15417Disallowance13Addition to Income12Section 2509Section 36(1)(va)

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)

84 days in A.Y. 2012-13, 82 days in A.Y. 2013-14, 21 days in A.Y. 2014-15, A.Y. 2015-16 & 20 days in A.Y. 2016-17. The ld AR stated that in terms of provisions of Section 253(5) of the Act, the Tribunal has the power to admit the appeal even after expiry of the period referred

Showing 1–20 of 23 · Page 1 of 2

9
Section 36(1)9
TDS8
Deduction6

NAGAHAT TEA ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1, JORHAT

ITA 19/GTY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati17 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 119(1)Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 80

84,594/- u/s 36(1) (va) based on various grounds of appeal raised by the appellant before her. 2. That the Ld. ADDL/JCIT (A) FARIDABAD, NFAC, wrongly interpreted and applied the provisions of section 119(2)(b) for denying condonation of delay

NAGAHAT TEA ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1, JORHAT

ITA 20/GTY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati17 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 119(1)Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 80

84,594/- u/s 36(1) (va) based on various grounds of appeal raised by the appellant before her. 2. That the Ld. ADDL/JCIT (A) FARIDABAD, NFAC, wrongly interpreted and applied the provisions of section 119(2)(b) for denying condonation of delay

NAGAHAT TEA ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1, JORHAT

ITA 18/GTY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati17 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 119(1)Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 80

84,594/- u/s 36(1) (va) based on various grounds of appeal raised by the appellant before her. 2. That the Ld. ADDL/JCIT (A) FARIDABAD, NFAC, wrongly interpreted and applied the provisions of section 119(2)(b) for denying condonation of delay

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 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

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

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

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

ITA 43/GTY/2022[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

L.K. TEA COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,DIBRUGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), DIBRUGARH

ITA 306/GTY/2018[L.K. Tea Company Private Limited]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Dec 2019

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini

Section 10ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 80Section 80ASection 80I

condone the impugned eight days’ delay in filing of latter appeal ITA No.307/Gau/2018. 3. Coming to the merits of the former issue, we notice that the CIT(A) has affirmed the Assessing Officer’s action denying sec. 80IE deduction of ₹1,20,13,510/- vide following detailed discussion:- “3. Ground Nos. 1,,3,4 for AY 2015-16 and Ground

L.K. TEA COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,DIBRUGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), DIBRUGARH

ITA 307/GTY/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Dec 2019AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini

Section 10ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 80Section 80ASection 80I

condone the impugned eight days’ delay in filing of latter appeal ITA No.307/Gau/2018. 3. Coming to the merits of the former issue, we notice that the CIT(A) has affirmed the Assessing Officer’s action denying sec. 80IE deduction of ₹1,20,13,510/- vide following detailed discussion:- “3. Ground Nos. 1,,3,4 for AY 2015-16 and Ground

SHRI ASHISH KUMAR DEY,DHARMANAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-SILCHAR, SILCHAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 122/GTY/2011[1/4/1989 to 8/12/1999]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati20 Sept 2022

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 120/Gty/2011 Block Year: 01/04/1989 To 08/12/1999 Shri Subhash Chandra Dey Assistant Commissioner Of Office-Tilla Vs Income Tax, Circle-Silchar Dharmanagar -799250 Tripura [Pan: Acrpd1916F] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nirmal Singh Dugar, ITPFor Respondent: Shri N.T. Sherpa, JCIT
Section 132Section 158B

84 with SBI, Dharmanagar regarding opening of Bank Locker and Jewellery and ornaments found and not seized against the Order U/S. 132(3) of the LT. Act, 1961 dated 08/12/1999. Annexure 'E' (4) Copy of prayer made before the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Investigation Circle, Silchar (Cachar) dated 08/01/2000 for Revocation of Restraint Orders passed

SMT. MAYA RANI DEY,DHARMANAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-SILCHAR, SILCHAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 121/GTY/2011[1/4/1989 to 8/12/1999]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati20 Sept 2022

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 120/Gty/2011 Block Year: 01/04/1989 To 08/12/1999 Shri Subhash Chandra Dey Assistant Commissioner Of Office-Tilla Vs Income Tax, Circle-Silchar Dharmanagar -799250 Tripura [Pan: Acrpd1916F] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nirmal Singh Dugar, ITPFor Respondent: Shri N.T. Sherpa, JCIT
Section 132Section 158B

84 with SBI, Dharmanagar regarding opening of Bank Locker and Jewellery and ornaments found and not seized against the Order U/S. 132(3) of the LT. Act, 1961 dated 08/12/1999. Annexure 'E' (4) Copy of prayer made before the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Investigation Circle, Silchar (Cachar) dated 08/01/2000 for Revocation of Restraint Orders passed

SHRI SUBHASH CHANDRA DEY,DHARMANAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- SILCHAR, SILCHAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 120/GTY/2011[1/4/1989 to 8/12/1999]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati20 Sept 2022

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 120/Gty/2011 Block Year: 01/04/1989 To 08/12/1999 Shri Subhash Chandra Dey Assistant Commissioner Of Office-Tilla Vs Income Tax, Circle-Silchar Dharmanagar -799250 Tripura [Pan: Acrpd1916F] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nirmal Singh Dugar, ITPFor Respondent: Shri N.T. Sherpa, JCIT
Section 132Section 158B

84 with SBI, Dharmanagar regarding opening of Bank Locker and Jewellery and ornaments found and not seized against the Order U/S. 132(3) of the LT. Act, 1961 dated 08/12/1999. Annexure 'E' (4) Copy of prayer made before the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Investigation Circle, Silchar (Cachar) dated 08/01/2000 for Revocation of Restraint Orders passed

TRIPURA STATE ELECTRICITY CORPORATION LIMITED ,AGARTALA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - AGARTALA, AGARTALA

ITA 31/GTY/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati18 Oct 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 143(3)Section 154

condone the impugned delay of 41 days in filing of both these appeals. The same are now taken for adjudication on merits. 4. It emerges during the course of hearing that many of the issues raised in these appeals are identical. We therefore proceed assessment year-wise for the sake of convenience and brevity. Assessment Year

TRIPURA STATE ELECTRICITY CORPORATION LIMITED ,AGARTALA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - AGARTALA, AGARTALA

ITA 32/GTY/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati18 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 143(3)Section 154

condone the impugned delay of 41 days in filing of both these appeals. The same are now taken for adjudication on merits. 4. It emerges during the course of hearing that many of the issues raised in these appeals are identical. We therefore proceed assessment year-wise for the sake of convenience and brevity. Assessment Year

TRIPURA STATE ELECTRICITY CORPORATION LIMITED ,AGARTALA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - AGARTALA, AGARTALA

ITA 167/GTY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati18 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 143(3)Section 154

condone the impugned delay of 41 days in filing of both these appeals. The same are now taken for adjudication on merits. 4. It emerges during the course of hearing that many of the issues raised in these appeals are identical. We therefore proceed assessment year-wise for the sake of convenience and brevity. Assessment Year

TRIPURA STATE ELECTRICITY CORPORATION LTD.,AGARTALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - UDAIPUR , AGARTALA

ITA 242/GTY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati18 Oct 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 143(3)Section 154

condone the impugned delay of 41 days in filing of both these appeals. The same are now taken for adjudication on merits. 4. It emerges during the course of hearing that many of the issues raised in these appeals are identical. We therefore proceed assessment year-wise for the sake of convenience and brevity. Assessment Year

TRIPURA STATE ELECTRICITY CORPORATION LTD.,TRIPURA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - AGARTALA, AGARTALA

ITA 63/GTY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati18 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 143(3)Section 154

condone the impugned delay of 41 days in filing of both these appeals. The same are now taken for adjudication on merits. 4. It emerges during the course of hearing that many of the issues raised in these appeals are identical. We therefore proceed assessment year-wise for the sake of convenience and brevity. Assessment Year

TRIPURA STATE ELECTRICITY CORPORATION LIMITED ,AGARTALA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - AGARTALA, AGARTALA

ITA 30/GTY/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati18 Oct 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 143(3)Section 154

condone the impugned delay of 41 days in filing of both these appeals. The same are now taken for adjudication on merits. 4. It emerges during the course of hearing that many of the issues raised in these appeals are identical. We therefore proceed assessment year-wise for the sake of convenience and brevity. Assessment Year