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.

122 results for “condonation of delay”+ Deemed Dividendclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai214Chennai156Kolkata122Delhi86Ahmedabad67Chandigarh53Pune37Bangalore35Jaipur29Amritsar27Visakhapatnam23Cochin17Cuttack16Lucknow14Hyderabad12SC9Varanasi5Guwahati5Nagpur4Calcutta4Indore3Raipur2Dehradun2Surat2Karnataka2Panaji1Rajkot1

Key Topics

Section 14A113Section 143(3)65Section 115J59Disallowance59Section 43B48Addition to Income46Section 25033Deduction29Condonation 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

condoned by the Ld. CIT, the delay in filing return of income stands late. Hence the assessee is not Ld. CIT, the delay in filing return of income stands late. Hence the assessee is not Ld. CIT, the delay in filing return of income stands late. Hence the assessee is not eligible for the benefit of exemption

M/S BIRENDRA CHANDRA SAHA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-39, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed

Showing 1–20 of 122 · Page 1 of 7

27
Limitation/Time-bar25
Section 2(22)(e)24
Section 26318
ITA 541/KOL/2014[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2016AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

Section 2(22)(e)Section 263

delay is to be condoned and we condone the same. 8. Now coming to the merits of the case, challenge is only in respect of the addition made by the ld. CIT under section 263 order to a tune of Rs.95,70,953/-. According to the ld. CIT, the unsecured loan advanced by M/s. Mascot Woodcraft Pvt. Limited

ACIT, CIRCLE - 15(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1084/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(3)

condone the impugned delay attributable to various procedural formalities and compilation of records. The case is now taken up for adjudication on merits. ITA No.1048/Kol/2018 Assessment Year 2012-13 ACIT, Cir-15(1), Kol. Vs M/s ABCI Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. Page 2 3. The Revenue’s first substantive grievance reads that the CIT(A) has erred

ACIT, CIRCLE - 6(2), KOLKATA vs. M/S. NAGREEKA SYNTHETICS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes and the cross-objection by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 427/KOL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 427/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S. Nagreeka Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. Circle-6(2), Kolkata Vs 6Th Floor, Jain Chamber 18, R.N. Mukherjee Road Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aaacn8691D] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) C.O. No. 19/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Nagreeka Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. Asst. Commissioner Of Income 6Th Floor, Jain Chamber Vs Tax, Circle-6(2), Kolkata 18, R.N. Mukherjee Road Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aaacn8691D] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.D. Verma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/09/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/11/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 4, Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 21/06/2018, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2009- 10. The Assessee Has Filed A Cross-Objection Being C.O. No. 19/Kol/2021. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 965 Days In Filing The Cross-Objection By The Assessee. The Assessee Has Filed A 2

For Appellant: Shri S.D. Verma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT D/R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(22)(e)Section 250Section 73

condone the delay and proceed to admit the same for hearing. 3. First, we will take up the revenue’s appeal. The facts in brief are that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of trading, manufacturing and investment. Loss of Rs.39,45,49,119/- declared in the e-return for Assessment Year 2009-10 furnished

ACIT, CIRCLE - 50(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI RANJIT KUMAR SAHA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and cross objection filed by the Assesse, both are dismissed

ITA 2192/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Nov 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. S. Ravi, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri C.J. Singh, ld.Sr.DR
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)

condone the delay. 3. At the outset itself, the ld. Counsel for the assessee informed the Bench that the assessee does not want to press the cross objection, (CO. No. 40/Kol/2018 arising out of ITA No. 2192/Kol/2017 for the A.Y 2013-14). The ld. DR for the Revenue does not raise any objection. Therefore, we dismiss the Cross Objection filed

D.C.I.T., CC - 2(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. EKO DIAGNOSTIC PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 159/KOL/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jan 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tulsyan, A/RFor Respondent: Smt. Madhumita Das, Addl. CIT, D/R
Section 143(2)Section 2(22)(e)Section 250Section 37(1)

condone the delay and proceed to admit the appeal for hearing. I.T.A. No. 159/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Eko Diagnostic Pvt. Ltd. 3 4. Facts in brief are that the assessee is a private limited company running a diagnostic centre. Income of Rs.2,55,37,237/- declared in e- return for Assessment Year 2013-14 filed on 29/09/2013. Case selected

DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S NILACHAL IRON & POWER LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 1774/KOL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Mar 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No.1774/Kol/2016 A.Y 2006-07 D.C.I.T, Cir-3(1), Kolkata Vs. M/S. Nilachal Iron & Power Ltd Pan: Aabcn 5428K (Appellant/Department) (Respondent/Assessee) I.T.A No.1718/Kol/2016 A.Y 2007-08 A.C.I.T, C.C 4(1), Kolkata Vs. M/S. Nilachal Iron & Power Ltd Pan: Aabcn 5428K (Appellant/Department) (Respondent/Assessee) For The Appellant : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit, Ld. Sr.Dr For The Respondent : Smt. Shikha Agarwal, Aca, Ld.Ar

For Appellant: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT, ld. Sr.DRFor Respondent: Smt. Shikha Agarwal, ACA, ld.AR
Section 143(3)

condone the impugned delay of 19 days in above referred Revenue’s appeal. 2.1 We now revert back to above referred common issue of the subsidy receipt of Rs. 2,85,42,000/- each deleted in the CIT(A)’s orders is both the assessment years under consideration before us. 3. Both the parties take

SHYAM GREENFIELD DEVELOPER PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), KOLKATA

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

ITA 1164/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Oct 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 250Section 253(3)Section 253(5)

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was grossly unjustified in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal ex-parte

MANAV KUMAR SARAF,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-37, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 340/KOL/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Apr 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-

Section 143(1)Section 2(22)(e)Section 24b

delay is accordingly condoned and this appeal of the assessee is being disposed of on merit. 1 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Manav Kumar Saraf 3. The grounds raised by the assessee in this appeal read as under:- “1. That under the facts & circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.5,10,590/- made

JHV CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CC - 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed but the order of the Pr

ITA 1289/KOL/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Feb 2026AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)Section 263Section 68

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. ITA No.: 1289/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 JHV Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order dated 27.03.2024 under section 263 of the Income

ITO, WARD - 1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ATN INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 1531/KOL/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Oct 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri Rajat Kr. Kureel, JCIT, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Miraj D. Shah, AR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 73

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the revenue for adjudication. 3. The first issue to be decided in the appeal of the revenue is as to whether the ld CITA is justified in treating the loss of Rs. 85,84,968/- as business loss as against the speculation loss treated by the ld AO in the facts

M/S RECKITT BENCKISER (I) PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas Appeals of the revenue are dismissed to the extent indicated above

ITA 625/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jun 2020AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.404/Kol/2015 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.625/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, Advocate & Shri Rohan Khare, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P. K Srihari, CIT(DR)

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the revenue for hearing on merits. 3. Since the issues involved in all the appeals are common and identical, therefore these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as facts narrated in ITA No. 625/Kol/2016

DCIT, CIR-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S RECKITT BENCKISER (I) LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas Appeals of the revenue are dismissed to the extent indicated above

ITA 518/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jun 2020AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.404/Kol/2015 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.625/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, Advocate & Shri Rohan Khare, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P. K Srihari, CIT(DR)

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the revenue for hearing on merits. 3. Since the issues involved in all the appeals are common and identical, therefore these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as facts narrated in ITA No. 625/Kol/2016

RECKITT DENCKISER (INDIA) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas Appeals of the revenue are dismissed to the extent indicated above

ITA 404/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jun 2020AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.404/Kol/2015 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.625/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, Advocate & Shri Rohan Khare, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P. K Srihari, CIT(DR)

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the revenue for hearing on merits. 3. Since the issues involved in all the appeals are common and identical, therefore these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as facts narrated in ITA No. 625/Kol/2016

DCIT, CIR-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas Appeals of the revenue are dismissed to the extent indicated above

ITA 529/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jun 2020AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.404/Kol/2015 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.625/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, Advocate & Shri Rohan Khare, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P. K Srihari, CIT(DR)

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the revenue for hearing on merits. 3. Since the issues involved in all the appeals are common and identical, therefore these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as facts narrated in ITA No. 625/Kol/2016

DCIT, CIR-8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MS. MINU BUDHIA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed and the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed as not pressed

ITA 1450/KOL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Aug 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 1450/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Dcit, Circle-8(2), Kolkata -Vs- Ms. Minu Budhia [Pan: Aefpb 5941 N] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri D.K. Kothari, ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(22)(e)Section 263

delayed condonation petition for the same. At the time of hearing, the ld. AR stated that the cross objection preferred by the assessee are only supportive of the order of the ld. CIT(A) and hence he is not pressing the same, in support of which, necessary endorsement has been made by the ld. AR in our file. Accordingly, cross

ARUP KUMAR BHOWMICK,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1(1), BURDWAN, BURDWAN

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

ITA 1513/KOL/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Jan 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250

delay is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. that passing off ex parte appellate order and dismissal of appeal by the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi is bad in law and unjust. 2. For that both the AO and NFAC failed

DCIT, CIR-8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI SANJAY BUDHIA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1451/KOL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Jan 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1451/Kol/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07)

For Appellant: Shri Rabin Choudhury, Addl. CIT, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri A. Banerjee, Advocate & V.K. Jain, FCA
Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

condone the delay and admit the cross objections for hearing. 3. The grievances raised by the Revenue are as follows: “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.2,00,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer in the order passed u/s 143(3)/147

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 7.1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MS. SOYUZ TRADING COMPANY LIMITED, KOLKATA

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

ITA 336/KOL/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jan 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. Brief facts of the case of the assessee is that the assessee filed its return of income for AY 2014-15 declaring total loss of Rs. 60,92,952/-. The case of assessee was selected for scrutiny, notice u/s 143(2) was issued thereafter notice u/s 142(1) along with

M/S MEDI DRIPS CARRIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-12(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 471/KOL/2014[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Mar 2017AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.471/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2008-2009) M/S Medi Drips Carries Pvt. Ltd Vs. Ito, Ward-12(4), 8Th Floor, R.No.818, P-7, Chowringhee Square, 4, Synagogue Street, Aayakar Bhawan, Kolkata-700001 Kolkata-700069 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcm 8139 Q .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ashish Rustogi, Aca Revenue By : Shri Saurav Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 01/03/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 08/03/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year 2008-09, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-Xii, Kolkata, In Appeal No.490/Xii/12(4)/10-11, Dated 11.11.2013, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 28.12.2010. 2. The Said Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Time Barred By Four Days. The Assessee Filed The Petition For Condonation Of Delay & Expressed The Reasons Of Delay. After Verification Of Petition We Found That There Was A Reasonable Cause For Four Days Delay In Filing The Appeal. Even Ld Dr Did Not Object To Condone The Delay. Therefore, We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal For Hearing. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Company Filed Its Return Of Income On 30.09.2008. Subsequently The 2 M/S Medi Drips Carries Pvt. Ltd. Assessee Company Filed Its Revised Return Of Income On 9-12-2008

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Rustogi, ACAFor Respondent: Shri Saurav Kumar, JCIT
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. Brief facts of the case qua the assessee are that the assessee company filed its return of income on 30.09.2008. Subsequently the 2 M/s Medi Drips Carries Pvt. Ltd. assessee company filed its revised return of income on 9-12-2008 showing total loss at Rs.3