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.

425 results for “condonation of delay”+ Carry Forward of Lossesclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai534Kolkata425Chennai241Delhi167Ahmedabad152Pune152Hyderabad128Chandigarh99Bangalore90Jaipur89Raipur73Surat66Amritsar48Rajkot47Visakhapatnam40Calcutta39Cuttack38Nagpur34Lucknow26Indore25Guwahati17Patna16SC14Cochin11Varanasi10Allahabad8Karnataka7Jodhpur6Dehradun5Telangana4Panaji3Agra2Jabalpur1Andhra Pradesh1Himachal Pradesh1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 14892Addition to Income70Section 143(3)67Section 14765Section 26360Limitation/Time-bar47Section 25046Section 6845Condonation of Delay

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

carrying not less than twenty per cent of the voting power are, at any time during the previous year, owned beneficially by such person or partly by such person during the previous year, owned beneficially by such person or partly by such person during the previous year, owned beneficially by such person or partly by such person and partly

ITO, WARD - 1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. GKW LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Showing 1–20 of 425 · Page 1 of 22

...
34
Section 143(2)30
Disallowance29
Section 115J24
ITA 459/KOL/2012[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Apr 2017AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganesh, I.T.A. No. 459/Kol/2012 Assessment Years: 1996-97

Section 143(3)Section 37Section 40A(3)

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the revenue for adjudication. 2 I.T.A. No. 459/Kol/2012 Assessment Years: 1996-97 M/s. GKW Ltd. 3. The first issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld CITA was justified in deleting the disallowance of Rs.74,635/- u/s 40A(3) in the facts and circumstances of the case

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

carried on under FACELESS mode as was explained by the said advocate tax consultant. 6. That suddenly on 11.01.2024 a letter has been received from the said tax consultant (who is an advocate) along with an income tax order raising a huge demand and I fell really sick on knowing the implications of the order through an expert

SUDHA DHOOT,KOLKATA vs. AO WARD 40 (4), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 127/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Ram Avtar Dhoot, CAFor Respondent: Smt Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT, DR
Section 143(1)Section 21Section 250

delay in filing the appeal is being condoned as the assessee seemed to have erred in following the procedure as per the letter dated 07.02.2024. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. That the Ld. Assessing Officer has disallowed the amount of Brought Forward losses amounting to Rs.43,97,351/- mentioning that the return

M/S. JEEVANDARSHI MARKETING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 6(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 509/KOL/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Nov 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 509/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2019-2020 M/S. Jeevandarshi Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(2), Kolkata 4Th Floor Vs 9, India Exchange Place Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aaacj8585A] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, A/R Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24/11/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/11/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 23/08/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act’), For Assessment Year 2019-2020. 2. The Sole Issue Raised By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Order Of The Assessing Officer Wherein The Assessing Officer Had Disallowed The Carry Forward Of Business Loss Of Rs.72,96,597/- On The Ground That The Return Was Filed On 01/11/2019 Whereas The Due Date Of Filing Was On 31/10/2019. 3. Facts In Brief Are That The Assessee Filed The Return Of Income On 01/11/2019 Declaring Total Loss At Rs.72,96,596/-. The Same Was Processed By The Central Processing Centre (Cpc), Bengaluru U/S 143(1) Of The Act Vide Intimation Dt. 30/04/2020, Wherein The Claim Of The Assessee Of Carry Forward Of Loss To Subsequent Year Was Rejected On The Ground That The Return Was Filed On 01/11/2019. 4. Aggrieved The Assesse Carried The Matter In Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A). The Ld. Cit(A) Simply Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee By

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, A/RFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT, D/R
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80I

condone the delay in the case of a return which is filed late and where a claim for carry forward of losses

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

condonation of delay. Thesaid Tax Advocate prepared the necessary documents and shared it with the Assessee and the said tax consultant vide an email dated March 11, 2020. The said Tax Advocate also advised that after filing of the instant appeal, an application should be made for hearing the instant appeal along with the appeal being ITA No. 314/Kol/2017 (hereinafter

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

condonation of delay. Thesaid Tax Advocate prepared the necessary documents and shared it with the Assessee and the said tax consultant vide an email dated March 11, 2020. The said Tax Advocate also advised that after filing of the instant appeal, an application should be made for hearing the instant appeal along with the appeal being ITA No. 314/Kol/2017 (hereinafter

M/S. HUMARA INDIA CREDIT COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED. ,KOLKATA vs. NFAC, DELHI. , DELHI

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

ITA 843/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.843/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Humara India Credit Co-Operative ………. Appellant Society Ltd. (Pan: Aaaah8186M) Vs. Assessing Officer, ………… Respondent National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi Appearances By: Shri Shri Praveen Kumar Bansal, Ar Appeared For Appellant. Shri Nicholash Murmu, Addl. Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 22.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 04.09.2024 Order Per Dr. Manish Borad:

Section 143(3)Section 250

condone the delay of 166 days in filing the instant appeal and admit the same for the purpose of adjudication on merits. Page 2 of 5 I.T.A. No. 843/Kol/2023 Humara India Credit Co-operative Society Ltd., AY: 2018-19 4. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “ 1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred

ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA,KOLKATA vs. M/S LARK WIRES & INFORTECH LTD., KOLKATA

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

ITA 145/KOL/2017[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Aug 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 145/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Acit/Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Lark Wires & Infotech Ltd. [Pan: Aaacv 9133 G ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Asim Choudhury, Advocate
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 139(3)Section 143(3)Section 80

condoned the delay as attributable due to technical issues beyond the control of the assessee. Consequentially, 2 3 M/s Lark Wires & Infotech Ltd. A.Yr.2009-10 he directed the ld. AO to allow the benefit of the carry forward of the business loss

JYOTI RANJAN ROY,KOLKATA vs. ACIT,(I.T.) CIR.-50, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 314/KOL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 May 2025AY 2006-07
Section 250Section 253(3)Section 263Section 68

condonation of\ndelay.\n16. Your petitioner states that the said tax consultant immediately gave\ndirections to the said Tax Advocate to draft the application for\ncondonation of delay. Thesaid Tax Advocate prepared the necessary\ndocuments and shared it with the Assessee and the said tax consultant\nvide an email dated March 11, 2020. The said Tax Advocate also advised\nthat

NAGREEKA EXPORTS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-6, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in I

ITA 947/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Feb 2019AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.947/Kol/2016 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.906/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2009-10 )

For Appellant: ShriS.D. Verma, Advocate & Shri Sanjeev Kadel, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. Since these two appeals filed by the Assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2009-10 and 2010-11 contain the identical and common issues, therefore, these have been clubbed and heard together and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience and brevity. 4.Although, these appeals filed

NAGREEKA EXPORTS LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 6, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in I

ITA 906/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.947/Kol/2016 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.906/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2009-10 )

For Appellant: ShriS.D. Verma, Advocate & Shri Sanjeev Kadel, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. Since these two appeals filed by the Assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2009-10 and 2010-11 contain the identical and common issues, therefore, these have been clubbed and heard together and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience and brevity. 4.Although, these appeals filed

PURULIA CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. ,PURULIA vs. ACIT, CIR. 3, PURULIA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3/KOL/2021[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Jul 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80Section 80P(2)(a)

delay has already been explained and condoned. 3. In the first ground of appeal, the assessee has challenged re-opening of assessment by issuance of a notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act. 4. Brief facts as emerging out from the assessment order would reveal that the assesese has filed its return of income on 02.07.2007 in compliance

DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. THE PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE & INVESTMENT CO. LTD.,, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1469/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Ita No. 1469 & 1470/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-12(1), Kolkata……………….………....…........Appellant Vs. M/S. The Peerless General Finance & Investment & Co. Ltd..................……………….…..Respondent 3, Esplanade East Kolkata – 700 069 [Pan : Aabct 3043 L] Appearances By: Shri Supriyo Pal, Jcit Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Adv. & Subrata Dey, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. . Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 31St, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 5Th, 2019 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

Section 14ASection 250

delay is condoned and the appeals are admitted. 2.1. We have heard rival contentions. On careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, perusal of the papers on record, orders of the authorities below as well as case law cited, we hold as follows:- 3. We first take the appeal of the revenue for the Assessment Year

D.C.I.T CIR - 3(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S THE PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE & INVESTMENT CO LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1470/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Dec 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Ita No. 1469 & 1470/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-12(1), Kolkata……………….………....…........Appellant Vs. M/S. The Peerless General Finance & Investment & Co. Ltd..................……………….…..Respondent 3, Esplanade East Kolkata – 700 069 [Pan : Aabct 3043 L] Appearances By: Shri Supriyo Pal, Jcit Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Adv. & Subrata Dey, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. . Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 31St, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 5Th, 2019 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

Section 14ASection 250

delay is condoned and the appeals are admitted. 2.1. We have heard rival contentions. On careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, perusal of the papers on record, orders of the authorities below as well as case law cited, we hold as follows:- 3. We first take the appeal of the revenue for the Assessment Year

ACIT, CIRCLE-8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. TATA STEEL PROCESSING AND DISTRIBUTION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2237/KOL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Dec 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A T Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 2237/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Acit, Circle-8(2), Kolkata -Vs- Tata Steel Processing & Distribution Ltd. [Pan: Aabct 1029 L ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32

Delay condoned. Leave granted. Pending hearing and final disposal of the Civil appeal, Department is restrained from recovering penalty and interest which has accrued till date. It is made clear that as far as the outstanding interest demand as of date is concerned, it would be open to the department to recover that amount in case Civil Appeal

THE PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE & INVESTMENT CO. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 937/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Singh, CIT, ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37(1)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 48

condone the delay and admit the appeal of Revenue for hearing. ITA No. 937/K/18 ITA No. 938/K/18 ITA No. 1439/K/18 A.Y 2010­11 The Peerless General Finance & Investment Co.Ltd 3 6. We shall take summarized and concise ground No.1, which reads as follows: (1). Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee in ITA No. 937/Kol/2018, for A.Y 2010­11 and Ground

THE PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE & INVESTMENT CO. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 938/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Singh, CIT, ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37(1)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 48

condone the delay and admit the appeal of Revenue for hearing. ITA No. 937/K/18 ITA No. 938/K/18 ITA No. 1439/K/18 A.Y 2010­11 The Peerless General Finance & Investment Co.Ltd 3 6. We shall take summarized and concise ground No.1, which reads as follows: (1). Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee in ITA No. 937/Kol/2018, for A.Y 2010­11 and Ground

D.C.I.T CIR - 5,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S RAIMA EQUITIES PVT LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1994/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri Divakar Chakraborty, JCIT, Sr. DRFor Respondent: ShriAshok Kr. Tulsyan, FCA &
Section 143(3)Section 43Section 73

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the revenue for adjudication. 3. The only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld CITA is justified in treating the share trading loss of Rs. 2,07,38,602/- as normal business loss instead of speculation loss in the facts and circumstances of the case

ACIT, CIR.-49(1), KOLKATA vs. SHRI BISWANATH PODDAR, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 121/KOL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Sept 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 139(4)Section 44ASection 68

carried forward for set off in subsequent years. 2. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,88,75,000/- made by the AO on account of unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without examining the creditworthiness of the loan creditor