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.

942 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 13(8)clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai1,681Delhi1,655Mumbai1,522Kolkata942Bangalore820Pune759Hyderabad603Jaipur518Ahmedabad496Raipur305Chandigarh293Surat292Nagpur286Visakhapatnam236Karnataka235Indore192Amritsar180Cochin142Lucknow139Rajkot133Cuttack112Panaji98Patna69SC54Calcutta51Dehradun40Guwahati35Allahabad31Telangana31Jodhpur30Agra27Varanasi19Jabalpur19Ranchi10Orissa6Rajasthan6Kerala5Himachal Pradesh4A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2DIPAK MISRA R.K. AGRAWAL PRAFULLA C. PANT1Gauhati1R.M. LODHA ANIL R. DAVE1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 250245Section 14858Addition to Income52Section 14748Section 143(3)46Limitation/Time-bar38Condonation of Delay32Section 26330Section 68

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

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

Appeal is dismissed

Showing 1–20 of 942 · Page 1 of 48

...
29
Disallowance23
Section 143(1)18
Section 13215
ITA 866/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: Disposed
ITAT Kolkata
02 Jul 2025
AY 2018-2019

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

Section 115BSection 250Section 271ASection 69A

condoned. 3. Before us, the Ld. AR stated that the assessee has a strong case on merits and it was only due to the negligence of the tax counsel that there was non-compliance before the Ld. AO and also carelessness in filing of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. AR drew our attention to the assessee

SWARUP KUMAR SAHA ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 50(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

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

ITA 366/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Swarup Kumar Saha…............…..…….……………………..…………………………………..……….……..Appellant 40C/1, Jessore Road Barasat Kolkata – 700 124 [Pan : Algps 1418 K] Income Tax Officer, Ward 50(2), Kolkata.………………………………...……...…………….......Respondent Appearances By: Shri K.M. Roy, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Provash Roy, Jcit, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 28Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 20Th , 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

Section 154Section 250Section 5

section 5 is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner, which subserves the ends of justice - that being the life-purpose of the existence of the institution of courts. A justifiably liberal approach has to be adopted on principle. "Every day's delay must be explained" does not imply a pedantic approach

LOYOLA HIGH SCHOOL,KOLKATA vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), WARD - 1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 472/KOL/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Mar 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

8 Loyola High School 1 ) of the Act the condonation of delay in filing of Form 9A & Form 10 by the Commissioners is not of any help to the assessee as section 13

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 in filing the appeal againstthe order dated December 31, 2009, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "the Act") before this Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata Bench (hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal"). 2. Your petitioner states that the said order dated December 31, 2009 was received

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 in filing the appeal againstthe order dated December 31, 2009, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "the Act") before this Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata Bench (hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal"). 2. Your petitioner states that the said order dated December 31, 2009 was received

QUALITY BAGS EXPORTERS (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CC-IV, KOL, KOLKATA

In the result the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2787/KOL/2013[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Sept 2016AY 2001-2002

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A Nos. 2787 To 2790/Kol/2013 Assessment Years : 2001-02,2002-03,2003-04 & 2004-05

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Debasish Roy, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 156Section 28Section 80H

section could be given effect from the date of amendment and not in respect of earlier assessment years of the assessees whose export turnover is above Rs. 10 Crore. In other words, the retrospective amendment should not be detrimental to any of the assesses. 11. The Appellant initiated action to file the appeal with Tribunal believing that the petition

ASANSOL DURGAPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,DURGAPUR vs. CIT, DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 756/KOL/2010[-----------]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jun 2016

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviasansol Durgapur V/S. Commissioner Of Development Authority Income Tax, 1St Administrative Durgapur, Urmila Building, City Center, Bhawan, City Center Durgapur, West Bengal [Pan No.Aaala 0733G] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

condoning the delay of registration application. The law of Income Tax Act clearly states that in terms of Sec. 12A(2) where the application made for registration u/s. 12A of the Act on or after the first day of June, 2007, the exemption of income would be available to the assessee from the Assessment Year immediately following the financial year

SANTANU DAS,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-25(1), KOLKATA

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

ITA 2582/KOL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 56(2)(x)

Section 3 of the Limitation Act; 5. Courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay if sufficient cause had been explained, but that exercise of power is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised even if sufficient cause is established for various factors such as, where there is inordinate delay, negligence and want of due diligence

BLUEBELL TRADECOM LLP (SUCCESSOR OF BLUEBELL TRADECOM PVT. LTD.),KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-2(4), KOLKATA CURRENTLY ITO, WARD-5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 499/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jul 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: the Honorable ITAT and accordingly the appeal was prepared.

Section 271(1)(c)Section 5

8. It is well settled in law that the delay may be condoned in cases where sufficient cause is explained for the delay in filing of the appeal. In support of the same we are relying on the following decisions: (a) In the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Kati Ji 1987 (13) ALR 306, Hon'ble Supreme Court

BLUEBELL TRADECOM LLP (SUCCESSOR OF BLUEBELL TRADECOM PVT. LTD.),KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD-1(1) NOW I.T.O., WARD-5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 500/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jul 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: the Honorable ITAT and accordingly the appeal was prepared.

Section 271(1)(c)Section 5

8. It is well settled in law that the delay may be condoned in cases where sufficient cause is explained for the delay in filing of the appeal. In support of the same we are relying on the following decisions: (a) In the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Kati Ji 1987 (13) ALR 306, Hon'ble Supreme Court

M/S B.N. DUTTA,JAMSHEDPUR vs. DCIT, CIR. 2, DURGAPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 705/KOL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.705/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S B. N. Dutta ….…………………………………………………..………….……Appellant Head Office: 518, G Road, Sonari West Layout, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand – 831011. [Pan: Aadfb0648J] Vs. Dcit, Circle-2, Durgapur……..……....….….. ……………….........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri D. Khasnobis, Ca & None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri H. Robindro Singh, Addl. Cit - Dr & None Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 05, 2025 & December 17, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 17, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 13.02.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Indore [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Partnership Firm & Engaged In The Business Of Civil Construction & Maintenance Of Civil Structures Inside Stell Plants. For The Assessment Year 2011-12, The Assessee Filed Its Return On 30.09.2011 By Declaring Total Income Of Rs.36,58,080/- & Total Tax & Cess Liability Of Rs.11,30,347/- Was Discharged In Full Resulting In A Refund Of Rs.12,520/-. The Return Of The Assessee Was Processed By The Cpc U/S 143(1) Of The Act On 27.01.2012. The Assessee Did Not Receive Any Information From The Cpc Either Directly By Way Of Service Of Physical Copy Of The Same Or From The Then Authorised Representative Namely Mr. S. N. Gupta. Due To Non-Receipt Of

Section 143(1)Section 249(3)Section 250

condoned merely on the basis of alleged non-receipt of communication which is not a good ground and the appeal of the assessee may be dismissed as time-barred by upholding the CIT(A)’s order. 8. We, after hearing the rival submissions and perusing the materials available on record, find that the CPC passed intimation order on 27.01.2012 regarding

THE WEST BENGAL POWER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 335/KOL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 250Section 43B

condone the delay of 52 days and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. The first issue raised by the assessee is against the confirmation of addition of Rs.17,29,58,525/- by ld. CIT(Appeals) as made by the ld. Assessing Officer on account of difference between the liabilities as on 31.03.2006 and as on 31.03.2007 payable to the financial

THE WEST BENGAL POWER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 334/KOL/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 250Section 43B

condone the delay of 52 days and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. The first issue raised by the assessee is against the confirmation of addition of Rs.17,29,58,525/- by ld. CIT(Appeals) as made by the ld. Assessing Officer on account of difference between the liabilities as on 31.03.2006 and as on 31.03.2007 payable to the financial

THE WEST BENGAL POWER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 333/KOL/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 250Section 43B

condone the delay of 52 days and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. The first issue raised by the assessee is against the confirmation of addition of Rs.17,29,58,525/- by ld. CIT(Appeals) as made by the ld. Assessing Officer on account of difference between the liabilities as on 31.03.2006 and as on 31.03.2007 payable to the financial

THE WEST BENGAL POWER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 336/KOL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 250Section 43B

condone the delay of 52 days and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. The first issue raised by the assessee is against the confirmation of addition of Rs.17,29,58,525/- by ld. CIT(Appeals) as made by the ld. Assessing Officer on account of difference between the liabilities as on 31.03.2006 and as on 31.03.2007 payable to the financial

ARVIND METALS & MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1785/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2013-14

Section 124Section 143(3)

Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice vide Shakuntala Devi Jam v. Kuntal Kumari (A/R 1969 SC 575 (1969) 1 SCR 1006) and State of WB v. Administrator, Howrah Municipality (1972) 1 SCC 366: A/R 1972 SC 749) 13. It must be remembered that in every case of delay, three

SHREE KARNI MATA TRUST,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEMPTIION),, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1213/KOL/2025[----]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 5Section 80G

13) ALR 306, Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: "The Legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting section 5 of the Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the Courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on 'merits'. The expression 'sufficient cause' employed by the Legislature is adequately elastic to enable

SHREE KARNI MATA TRUST,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEMPTION),, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1214/KOL/2025[----]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 5Section 80G

13) ALR 306, Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: "The Legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting section 5 of the Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the Courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on 'merits'. The expression 'sufficient cause' employed by the Legislature is adequately elastic to enable

BISHNUPUR PUBLIC EDUCATION INSTITUTE,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 585/KOL/2020[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata20 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 10Section 12A

13 contended that the delay in filing the applications ought to be condoned and assessee should have been granted registration. On the other hand, ld. CIT(DR) relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of All Angels Educational Society –vs.- Chief CIT, Chennai-III reported in 72 taxmann.com 251. He submitted in this