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.

1,353 results for “condonation of delay”+ Business Incomeclear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai2,180Mumbai2,146Delhi1,409Kolkata1,353Bangalore977Hyderabad703Pune664Ahmedabad555Jaipur405Cochin320Patna279Nagpur272Surat272Visakhapatnam233Chandigarh228Indore212Lucknow199Raipur195Karnataka191Amritsar180Cuttack164Rajkot137Panaji104Calcutta75Agra66Guwahati59Jodhpur38SC32Allahabad31Jabalpur31Telangana29Varanasi22Dehradun20Ranchi7Kerala4Orissa3Andhra Pradesh2Himachal Pradesh1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)70Section 14863Addition to Income55Section 14752Limitation/Time-bar52Section 25047Condonation of Delay39Section 6837Disallowance

THE WEST BENGAL NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF JURIDICIAL SCIENCE,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEMPTION) , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2643/KOL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Sept 2020AY 2016-17
Section 10Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 2Section 263

condonation of delay by the ld. CIT(E) and grant exemption to the assessee. He did so in the assessment order the ld. CIT(E) and grant exemption to the assessee. He did so in the assessment order the ld. CIT(E) and grant exemption to the assessee. He did so in the assessment order passed

DCIT, CIR-26, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S TEWARI WAREHOUSING COMPANY, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands allowed partly for statistical

Showing 1–20 of 1,353 · Page 1 of 68

...
28
Section 26327
Section 14A23
Section 143(2)18
ITA 1316/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Mar 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:2010-11 Dcit, Circle-26 M/S Tewari Warehousing Co. बनाम / Aayakar Bhawan Hide Shed Dump, Old V/S. Dakshin, 2, Gariahat Goragacha Road, Kolkata-88 Road, (South), [Pan No.Aacft 5579 K] Kolkata-68 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri Arindam Bhattacherjee, Addl. Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Vikash Surana, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 31-01-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 16-03-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Revenue Is Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Kolkata Dated 14.03.2016. Assessment Was Framed By Jcit, Range- 53, Kolkata U/S 143(3)/144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 28.03.2013 For Assessment Year 2010-11. The Grounds Raised By The Revenue Per Its Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Directing To Assess The Entire Gross Receipts S Business Income & Allow Deductions As Per Section 28 To 43 Of The It Act When Rental Income Of Rs.2,31,00,000/- Was Already Included In The Gross Receipts. 2. That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Estimation Of Business Profits Of Rs.2,37,72,132/- Made By The Ao Though Rejection Of Assessee’S Books Of Account U/S 145(3) Considering The Facts Of The Case. 3. That The Ld. Cit(A)’S Order Is Contrary To The Law & Fact Of The Case. 4. The Appellant Craves Leaves To, Add To, Alter Or Modify Any One Or All Of The Grounds Of Appeal Mentioned Above.”

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 194Section 27Section 28

income of Rs.2,31,00,000/- was already included in the gross receipts. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the estimation of business profits of Rs.2,37,72,132/- made by the AO though rejection of assessee’s books of account u/s 145(3) considering the facts of the case. 3. That

AMALENDU KUMAR MODAK,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , 50(1), KOLKATA

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

ITA 1367/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18 Amalendu Kumar Modak, Income Tax Officer, 50(1), Karer Ganga, Laha Bagan, Garia, Income Tax Office, Civil Centre, Vs Garia Main Road, Kolkata-700084, Uttarapan Complex, West Bengal Manicktala, Kolkata-700 067, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aekpm9399G Present For: Appellant By : Shri Indranil Banerjee, Ar Respondent By : Shri Pradip Kumar Biswas, Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.11.2024 O R D E R Per Rakesh Mishra: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld. Cit (A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For Ay 2017-18 Dated 14.11.2024, Which Has Been Passed Against The Assessment Order U/S 147 Read With Section 144 Read With Section 144B Of The Act, Dated 29.05.2023. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Indranil Banerjee, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pradip Kumar Biswas, DR
Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 149(1)(a)Section 151Section 151ASection 250

business. Amalendu Kumar Modak; A.Y. 2017-18 2. That the appellant had been regular in filing his return of income in accordance with the provisions of the Income tax, 1961. 3. That the appellant depends on a local tax practioner /advocate for filing his income tax returns and for other compliance matters, and had never faced any consequences for lapse

DCIT,CIRCLE-1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. CALCUTTA MUMBAI TRUCK TERMINAL LTD, HOWRAH

Accordingly, the ground no. 2 raised by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1189/KOL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Oct 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri R.S Sahay, FCA,, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Mukherjee, JCIT,ld.DR
Section 143(3)

condone the delay and the appeal is admitted for further adjudication. 7.1. The issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the rental income from godowns derived by the assessee is to be taxed as business

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4(4), KOLKATA vs. M/S PAWAN INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2160/KOL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 May 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] Assessment Year : 2004-05

For Appellant: Shri Rajat Kr.Kureel, JCITFor Respondent: Shri S.M.Surana, Advocate
Section 14ASection 24Section 73

delay is condoned. The Assessee is a company. It is engaged in the business of trading in shares, granting of ITA No.2160/Kol/2013-M/s.Pawan Industrial Corporation Ltd.A.Y.2004-05 loans and advances. It derives income

ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. C.D. EQUIFINANCE PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed, while the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1790/KOL/2008[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 10(38)

condone the said delay and proceed to dispose of this appeal of the Revenue on merit. 4. In Ground No 1 raised in this appeal, the Revenue has challenged the action of the ld. CIT(Appeals) in accepting the treatment given by the assessee to the profit from sale of certain shares as business income

DCIT, CIR-13(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. CALCUTTA MUMBAI TRUCK TERMINAL LTD., HOWRAH

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 844/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Mar 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Hon’Ble] I.T.A. No. 844/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-13(1), Kolkata.……………………..….Appellant Ayakar Bhavan Poorva 6Th Floor R. No. 610 110, Shantipally Kolkata – 700 107 Calcutta Mumbai Truck Terminal Ltd………………………………………………….……...Respondent 545, G.T. Road (South) Howrah - 711102 [Pan : Aabcc 0747 Q] Appearances By: Shri R.S. Sahay, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. Cit, Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 20Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 1St March, 2018 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevan :-

Section 22Section 250Section 80

delay is condoned. 3. The grounds of appeal raised by the revenue reads as follows:- “1. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in considering the Rental income against various capital assets as assessee’s business

BISWAJIT ROY,JALPAIGURI vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), , JALPAIGURI

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 866/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jul 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Him, In Limine, By Not Condoning A Delay Of 436 Days Before Him.

Section 115BSection 250Section 271ASection 69A

Income Tax Authorities. 2.16 Deliberate inaction or negligence on the part of the appellant is not a sufficient ground for condonation of delay. Thus, the reasons stated by the appellant for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time is found to be bereft of any merits in the absence of documentary evidences. The law assists those who are vigilant

JYOTI RANJAN ROY(LIMITED GUAREDIAN -SUVAJIT ROY),KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 49(1), KOLKATA

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

ITA 261/KOL/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 May 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.963/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Jyoti Ranjan Roy Represented By Limited Guardian Suvajit Roy.............................……….……Appellant Block Ac-155, Sector-1, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700064. [Pan:Adlpr2179P] Vs. Acit, Circle-50, Kolkata.............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent I.T.A. No.314/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Jyoti Ranjan Roy ……………………………..............................……….……Appellant Block Ac-155, Sector-1, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700064. [Pan: Adlpr2179P] Vs. Acit, Circle-50, Kolkata.............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent I.T.A. No.261/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Jyoti Ranjan Roy ……………………………..............................……….……Appellant Block Ac-155, Sector-1, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700064. [Pan: Adlpr2179P] Vs. Dcit, Circle-49(1), Kolkata.............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent

Section 250Section 253(3)Section 68

income. 35. Your petitioner states that the Assessee has a good case on merits. There has been no negligence or laches on your petitioner's or the Assessee's part and that your petitioner has been bonafide and diligent in pursuing the matter. The delay in preferring the instant appeal was occasioned by circumstances completely beyond your petitioner's control

JYOTI RANJAN ROY REPRESENTED BY LIMITED GUARDIAN SUVAJIT ROY ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 50, KOLKATA

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

ITA 963/KOL/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 May 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.963/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Jyoti Ranjan Roy Represented By Limited Guardian Suvajit Roy.............................……….……Appellant Block Ac-155, Sector-1, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700064. [Pan:Adlpr2179P] Vs. Acit, Circle-50, Kolkata.............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent I.T.A. No.314/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Jyoti Ranjan Roy ……………………………..............................……….……Appellant Block Ac-155, Sector-1, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700064. [Pan: Adlpr2179P] Vs. Acit, Circle-50, Kolkata.............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent I.T.A. No.261/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Jyoti Ranjan Roy ……………………………..............................……….……Appellant Block Ac-155, Sector-1, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700064. [Pan: Adlpr2179P] Vs. Dcit, Circle-49(1), Kolkata.............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent

Section 250Section 253(3)Section 68

income. 35. Your petitioner states that the Assessee has a good case on merits. There has been no negligence or laches on your petitioner's or the Assessee's part and that your petitioner has been bonafide and diligent in pursuing the matter. The delay in preferring the instant appeal was occasioned by circumstances completely beyond your petitioner's control

M/S TEA PROMOTERS (INDIA) PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T RG - 4,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1897/KOL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 10BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

delay in filing appeal deserves to be considered and is condoned. Accordingly the appeals are admitted and the hearing proceeded with. First we take up assessee’s appeal in ITA No. 1841/Kol/2013 for A.Y.02-03. 3. The assessee in the first issue has challenged the assessment proceedings u/s147 of the Act which was also confirmed by the ld. (CIT). For this

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4(4), KOLKATA vs. M/S TEA PROPOTERS (INDIA) PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2161/KOL/2013[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 10BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

delay in filing appeal deserves to be considered and is condoned. Accordingly the appeals are admitted and the hearing proceeded with. First we take up assessee’s appeal in ITA No. 1841/Kol/2013 for A.Y.02-03. 3. The assessee in the first issue has challenged the assessment proceedings u/s147 of the Act which was also confirmed by the ld. (CIT). For this

A.C.I.T CIR - 36,KOLKATA., KOLKATA vs. M/S SRI RAM COMMERCIAL CO, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 623/KOL/2013[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2016AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 10BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

delay in filing appeal deserves to be considered and is condoned. Accordingly the appeals are admitted and the hearing proceeded with. First we take up assessee’s appeal in ITA No. 1841/Kol/2013 for A.Y.02-03. 3. The assessee in the first issue has challenged the assessment proceedings u/s147 of the Act which was also confirmed by the ld. (CIT). For this

M/S TEA PROMOTERS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1841/KOL/2013[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 10BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

delay in filing appeal deserves to be considered and is condoned. Accordingly the appeals are admitted and the hearing proceeded with. First we take up assessee’s appeal in ITA No. 1841/Kol/2013 for A.Y.02-03. 3. The assessee in the first issue has challenged the assessment proceedings u/s147 of the Act which was also confirmed by the ld. (CIT). For this

STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA EMPLOYEES CO.-OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR.-28, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 425/KOL/2020[2008]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Apr 2022

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am ]

condone the delay and admit all the appeals for hearing. 3. First of all we will take up the appeals preferred by the revenue. Since grounds of appeal are common and facts are identical, we dispose of all the revenue’s appeal by a consolidated order for the sake of convenience. Grounds of appeal raised by the revenue

ACIT, CIR.-29, KOLKATA vs. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA EMP.CO.OP.CR. SOCIETY LTD , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 268/KOL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am ]

condone the delay and admit all the appeals for hearing. 3. First of all we will take up the appeals preferred by the revenue. Since grounds of appeal are common and facts are identical, we dispose of all the revenue’s appeal by a consolidated order for the sake of convenience. Grounds of appeal raised by the revenue

ACIT, CIR.-29,, KOLKATA vs. M/S STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA EMPLOYEES CO-OP. CR. SOCIETY LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 258/KOL/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am ]

condone the delay and admit all the appeals for hearing. 3. First of all we will take up the appeals preferred by the revenue. Since grounds of appeal are common and facts are identical, we dispose of all the revenue’s appeal by a consolidated order for the sake of convenience. Grounds of appeal raised by the revenue

STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR.-28, KOLAKTA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 428/KOL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am ]

condone the delay and admit all the appeals for hearing. 3. First of all we will take up the appeals preferred by the revenue. Since grounds of appeal are common and facts are identical, we dispose of all the revenue’s appeal by a consolidated order for the sake of convenience. Grounds of appeal raised by the revenue

ACIT, CIR.-29, KOLKATA vs. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA EMP.CO.OP.CR. SOCIETY LTD , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 269/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am ]

condone the delay and admit all the appeals for hearing. 3. First of all we will take up the appeals preferred by the revenue. Since grounds of appeal are common and facts are identical, we dispose of all the revenue’s appeal by a consolidated order for the sake of convenience. Grounds of appeal raised by the revenue

STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA EMPLOYEES CO.OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR.-28, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 427/KOL/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am ]

condone the delay and admit all the appeals for hearing. 3. First of all we will take up the appeals preferred by the revenue. Since grounds of appeal are common and facts are identical, we dispose of all the revenue’s appeal by a consolidated order for the sake of convenience. Grounds of appeal raised by the revenue