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.

103 results for “condonation of delay”+ Rectification u/s 154clear

Sorted by relevance

Patna468Delhi270Mumbai234Pune223Chennai158Bangalore156Kolkata103Ahmedabad79Hyderabad67Jaipur58Chandigarh56Nagpur38Indore33Lucknow30Cochin29Visakhapatnam24Karnataka23Surat21Amritsar18Jodhpur17Raipur16Agra13Guwahati12Rajkot11Allahabad9Jabalpur8Cuttack6Dehradun4Panaji3SC2Telangana2Varanasi2Orissa1

Key Topics

Section 154191Section 143(1)110Rectification u/s 15469Section 25055Section 9052Condonation of Delay46Section 143(3)41Section 26340Limitation/Time-bar

AVISHI PROJECTS LLP ,KOLKATA vs. ADIT, CPC, BANGALORE. , BANGALORE

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

ITA 1249/KOL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri S. Jhajharia, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Vineet Kumar, Addl. CIT, D/R
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 5

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing on merits. 5. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that credit of tax deducted at source (TDS) and tax collected at source (TCS), was not allowed in the return processed u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act against which the assessee has filed the instant appeal

Showing 1–20 of 103 · Page 1 of 6

37
Addition to Income36
Deduction32
Disallowance29

CHEVIOT COMPANY LIMITED EMPLOYEES GRATUITY TRUST FUND ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 32(1) , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2699/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 2699/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Cheviot Company Limited Employees Gratuity Trust Fund .............................Appellant Magna House, 9Th Floor, 24, Park Street, Kolkata – 700 016. [Pan: Aaatc 5070 G] Ito, Ward 32(1), Kolkata...................………………………………………….................Respondent 10B, Middleton Row, Kolkata – 700 071. Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Shankar Halder, Sr. Dr, Jcit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 08, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 08, 2019 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Vp This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) – 9, Kolkata Dated 29.11.2018 Whereby He Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee In Limine By Treating The Same As Barred By Limitation

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 154

154 and after having failed to succeed therein, he perused the other remedy by filing an appeal against the intimation u/s 143(1) before the Ld. CIT(A) which caused the delay. Having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the delay of 228 days on the part of the assessee

CHEVIOT COMPANY LIMITED EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 32(1) , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2698/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 2698/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Cheviot Company Limited Employees Provident Fund ..............................…….Appellant Magna House, 9Th Floor, 24, Park Street, Kolkata – 700 016. [Pan: Aaatc 1539 N] Ito, Ward 32(1), Kolkata...................………………………………………….................Respondent 10B, Middleton Row, Kolkata – 700 071. Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Shankar Halder, Sr. Dr, Jcit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 08, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 08, 2019 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Vp This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) – 9, Kolkata Dated 29.11.2018 Whereby He Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee In Limine By Treating The Same As Barred By Limitation

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 154

condonation of the delay and rejecting the same, he dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine by treating the same as barred by limitation for the following reasons given in his impugned order: 3 I.T.A. No. 2698/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Cheviot Company Ltd. Employees Provident Fund “I have considered the petition. The appellant had applied for rectification u/s

SOCIETY FOR COMMUNITY INTERVENTION & RESEARCH,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1(1), EXEMPTION, KOLKATA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2087/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.2087/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Society For Community Intervention & Research…....Appellant 2/2, Tiljala Road, Near No.2 Rail Gate, Park Circus Station, Kol-700046. [Pan: Aaatc4285B] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Exemption, Kolkata…..…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, Ar & Vidhi Ladia, Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Susanta Saha & Shri Rajat Datta, Sr. Drs, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 05, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 16, 2024 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 14.08.2024 Of The Cit(Appeals), Addl/Jcit(A)-1, Hyderabad [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That An Intimation Order U/S 143(1) Of The Act Dated 27.03.2019 Was Passed By The Cpc, Bengaluru Denying Exemption U/S 11 To The Assessee On The Ground Of Non-Filing Form 10B In Time Or Before The Filing Of The Return Of Income.

Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 249(2)(b)Section 250

rectification application u/s 154 and condonation of delay application u/s 119(2)(b) which attributed the genuine efforts of the assessee

RAMAKRISHNA RAO,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), ALIPURDUAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 541/KOL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sailen Samadder, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 90

rectification petition u/s. 154 of the Act but the same was not allowed. Thereafter, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who, without going into the merits of the case, dismissed the assessee’s appeal on account of delay of 254 days because the reasons assigned were not sufficient for condonation

ADITYA VIKRAM ROY CHOWDHURY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 358/KOL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Dec 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Hon’Ble Vice-(Kz)] [Through Virtual Court] I.T.A. No. 358/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Aditya Vikram Roy Chowdhury..............................................................................................Appellant 15B, Mandeville Gardens, Charuvila, Ballygunge, Kolkata – 700 019. [Pan: Ajwpr 7809 M] Vs Ito, Ward – 1(1), Kolkata..................………………………………………................................Respondent Appearances By: None Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Jayanta Khanra, Jcit, Sr. Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue: Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 11, 2021 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 08, 2021 Order

For Respondent: Date of concluding the hearing : November 11, 2021
Section 143(1)Section 154

delay was sought to be condoned by the assessee on the ground that an application u/s 154 was filed by him seeking rectification

L & T FINANCE LIMITED (SUCCESSOR OF L & T INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED, NOW MERGED),KOLKATA vs. CIT(A),NFAC,ITD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 645/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 14ASection 249(3)Section 250

condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal on merit. 13. The Revenue has taken three grounds of appeal, out of that Ground No. 3 is a general ground, which does not call for recording of any specific finding. 14. The rest of the two grounds read as under:- (1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances

DCIT, KOLKATA vs. L & T FINANCE LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 377/KOL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 14ASection 249(3)Section 250

condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal on merit. 13. The Revenue has taken three grounds of appeal, out of that Ground No. 3 is a general ground, which does not call for recording of any specific finding. 14. The rest of the two grounds read as under:- (1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances

SWARNAPROVA DUTTA, L/H : SHRI UJJAL DUTTA,BIRBHUM vs. ITO, WARD - 3(1), SURI , BIRBHUM

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2210/KOL/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] I.T.A. Nos. 2210 - 2212/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2005-06 Swarnaprova Dutta.................................……………………………………………………….......Appellant L/H: Sri Ujjal Dutta Netaji Road, Bolpur, Birbhum – 731 204. [Pan: Aiipd 0957 H] Ito, Ward 3(1)Suri...................……………………………………………………….................Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, Suri, Birbhum – 731 101. Appearances By: Shri Miraj D Shah, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri C.J. Singh, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 07, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 28, 2019 Order

Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

rectification u/s 154. Aggrieved by the orders of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has preferred these appeals before the Tribunal. 8. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. It is observed that the appeals against the orders passed by the AO u/s 147/143

SWARNAPROVA DUTTA, L/H : SHRI UJJAL DUTTA,BIRBHUM vs. ITO, WARD - 3(1), SURI , BIRBHUM

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2212/KOL/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] I.T.A. Nos. 2210 - 2212/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2005-06 Swarnaprova Dutta.................................……………………………………………………….......Appellant L/H: Sri Ujjal Dutta Netaji Road, Bolpur, Birbhum – 731 204. [Pan: Aiipd 0957 H] Ito, Ward 3(1)Suri...................……………………………………………………….................Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, Suri, Birbhum – 731 101. Appearances By: Shri Miraj D Shah, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri C.J. Singh, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 07, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 28, 2019 Order

Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

rectification u/s 154. Aggrieved by the orders of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has preferred these appeals before the Tribunal. 8. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. It is observed that the appeals against the orders passed by the AO u/s 147/143

SWARNAPROVA DUTTA, L/H : SHRI UJJAL DUTTA,BIRBHUM vs. ITO, WARD - 3(1), SURI , BIRBHUM

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2211/KOL/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] I.T.A. Nos. 2210 - 2212/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2005-06 Swarnaprova Dutta.................................……………………………………………………….......Appellant L/H: Sri Ujjal Dutta Netaji Road, Bolpur, Birbhum – 731 204. [Pan: Aiipd 0957 H] Ito, Ward 3(1)Suri...................……………………………………………………….................Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, Suri, Birbhum – 731 101. Appearances By: Shri Miraj D Shah, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri C.J. Singh, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 07, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 28, 2019 Order

Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

rectification u/s 154. Aggrieved by the orders of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has preferred these appeals before the Tribunal. 8. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. It is observed that the appeals against the orders passed by the AO u/s 147/143

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

MEDI SCAN,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-22, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1395/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Apr 2016AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm ] I.T.A No.1395/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Medi-Scan -Vs.- D.C.I.T., Circle-22, Kolkata Kolkata (Pan:Aajfm 4182 E) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K.M.Roy, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sujit Das, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 154

delay in filing the appeal by the assessee is accordingly condoned. ITA No.1395/Kol/2015-Medi-Scan-A.Y.2010-11 1 3. As far as the merits of the assessee’s appeal is concerned, the facts are that the Assessee is a partnership firm. For A.Y.2010-11 the assessee filed return of income electronically declaring the total income of Rs.1,34,450/- (which comprises only of income under

NEETU AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD 7(1), KOLKATA

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

ITA 67/KOL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Puja Agarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Abhishek Kumar, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234BSection 250Section 90

rectification order u/s 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 08.08.2022. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are reproduced as under: “1 Passing the order under section 250 of the Income Tax Act. 1961 ('the Act') which is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 2 Dismissing the appeal

A.K. EXPORTERS,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. -32, KOLKATA

In the result appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 616/KOL/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 154Section 263Section 35(1)(ii)

condone the delay and admit these appeals for hearing. 3. At the outset it has been brought to our notice that facts & law pertaining to both appeals are same (except difference in amount ). Since both sides agree, we take up appeal of AY 2013-14 as lead case, which result will be followed for AY 2012-13. According

A.K. EXPORTERS,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. -32, KOLKATA

In the result appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 615/KOL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 154Section 263Section 35(1)(ii)

condone the delay and admit these appeals for hearing. 3. At the outset it has been brought to our notice that facts & law pertaining to both appeals are same (except difference in amount ). Since both sides agree, we take up appeal of AY 2013-14 as lead case, which result will be followed for AY 2012-13. According

M/S BALAKA COLD STORAGE PVT. LTD.,HOOGHLY vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 190/KOL/2015[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Dec 2016AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2008-09

Section 143(1)Section 154

condone the delay and to proceed hearing of the appeal. 3. It was also noticed that the instant case has been listed 20 times so far and Revenue has moved adjournment petition in this case almost 14 times. The Revenue again filed adjournment applications in 14 cases out of total 19 cases listed for hearing today including the present case

TAKDAH LINGDING GPSKUS LTD.,DARJEELING vs. ITO, WARD-3(2), DARJEELING

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

ITA 211/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 249(2)Section 250Section 80P

154 of the Act dated 31.05.2019. 2. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant submitted that ld. CIT(A) did not consider his condonation petition and rejected the ground of delay and dismissing the I.T.A. No.: 211/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Takdah Lingding GPSKUS Limited. appeal only on the point of limitation. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submits that the Appellant

DREAM RESIDENCY TWINS,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-32, KOLKATA

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

ITA 2588/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 2588/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Dream Residency Twins,……………..…………Appellant 44/2A, Hazra Road, Kolkata-700013 [Pan:Aagfd1014M] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,……...Respondent Circle-32, Kolkata, Income Tax Officer, 10B, Sir William Jones Sarani, Middleton Row, Park Street Area, Kolkata-700071 Appearances By: Shri Sunil Surana, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Jcit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: April 09, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: May 30, 2025 O R D E R

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 81BSection 81B(10)

condonation petition to justify the said delay, which reads as under:- “The order u/s 143(1) was received on 27.01.2020 and same was handed to our Chartered Accountant (CA) for taking necessary action. We were pursuing alternative remedy through rectification petition u/s 154

ASHRAMA PRAKTAN CHHATRA SANGHA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1(4), (EXEMPTION), KOLKATA

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

ITA 2063/KOL/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Dec 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Your Lordship For Justice In Connection Of Uphold Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) For The

Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 154Section 250

154 of the Act was to allow condonation of delay in the filing of Form 10 so as to avail the benefit of deduction available to an institution registered u/s 12A of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) has recorded in para 2 of the impugned order, that the I.T.A. No. 2063/Kol/2024 Ashrama Praktan Chhatra Sangha rectification