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.

51 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 138clear

Sorted by relevance

Karnataka104Mumbai102Chennai92Bangalore84Delhi82Ahmedabad73Pune65Kolkata51Calcutta36Hyderabad27Jaipur24Indore19Chandigarh18Kerala17Surat13Visakhapatnam10Lucknow10Rajkot8Cochin7Raipur7Cuttack5Nagpur5Patna5Allahabad3SC3Amritsar3Andhra Pradesh2Jodhpur1Orissa1Rajasthan1Dehradun1

Key Topics

Section 14A51Section 143(3)40Section 26333Addition to Income32Section 153A27Disallowance27Section 25022Condonation of Delay21Section 68

PRAMOD LAKRA, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. AMICUS HEALTHCARE SERVICES & SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. , KOLKATA

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2572/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(2)Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 68

138 days in filing appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT, Kolkata for the sake of substantial justice. Verification I, the undersigned do hereby verify on solemn affirmation in Kolkata that the contents of this affidavit are true to the best of my knowledge and material has been concealed.” 1.1 Considering the reasons given in the said petition, the delay

DCIT, LTU-2, KOLKATA vs. M/S CENTURY PLYBOARDS (I), LTD, KOLKATA

Showing 1–20 of 51 · Page 1 of 3

20
Section 132(4)20
Limitation/Time-bar20
Section 143(2)11

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objections of assessee are allowed

ITA 2149/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) &Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] Assessment Year: 2014-15

Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 14A

138) − Bata India Ltd Vs DCIT (180 ITD 464) 9. Respectfully following the same, we are of the view that the ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition of Rs.34,29,000/- by the AO u/s 14A read with Rule 8D, while computing book profit u/s 115JB of the Act, therefore, for the reasons as aforesaid, we therefore

LAHANDA GOMARDA SAMABAY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LTD.,UTTAR DINAJPUR vs. ITO WARD-2(4), RAIGANJ

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 131/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Lahanda Gomarda Samabay Income Tax Officer, Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd. Ward 2(4), Maharaja Hat, Lahanda, It Office, Sbi Building, Vs. Dist. Uttar Dinajpur, Karnojhora, Raiganj, West West Bengal 733129 Dinajpur, West Bengal-733134 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaal5359A Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury & Shri Pranabesh Sarkar, Ars Revenue By : Shri Kapil Monda, Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.05.2025

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury &For Respondent: Shri Kapil Monda, DR
Section 143(2)

138 days. 03. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record including the contents of the condonation petition, we are inclined to condone the delay by treating the reasons for delay to be bonafide and genuine. 04. The assessee raised an additional ground during the hearing which was against the invalid notice issued

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. VEDA COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1527/KOL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Nov 2016AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rabin Chaudhury, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 14A

condone the delay in filing of cross objections by the assessee for both the years under appeal and admit the same for adjudication. CO No. 153/Kol/2010 – Asst Year 2006-07 – Assessee CO CO No. 154/Kol/2010 – Asst Year 2007-08 – Assessee CO & CO Nos. 153 & 154/Kol/2010 Veda Commercial Pvt. Ltd., AY 2006-07 & 2007-08 3. The only issue

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. VEDA COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1064/KOL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Nov 2016AY 2006-07

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

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rabin Chaudhury, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 14A

condone the delay in filing of cross objections by the assessee for both the years under appeal and admit the same for adjudication. CO No. 153/Kol/2010 – Asst Year 2006-07 – Assessee CO CO No. 154/Kol/2010 – Asst Year 2007-08 – Assessee CO & CO Nos. 153 & 154/Kol/2010 Veda Commercial Pvt. Ltd., AY 2006-07 & 2007-08 3. The only issue

M/S IMPEX FERRO TECH LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.CI.T.,CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1640/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144CSection 145(3)Section 250

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2. The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: I. ITA No. 1521/KOL/2019: “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 55,22,53,107/- by recording a finding that

D.CI.T.,CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S IMPEX FERRO TECH LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1521/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144CSection 145(3)Section 250

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2. The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: I. ITA No. 1521/KOL/2019: “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 55,22,53,107/- by recording a finding that

DCIT,CIRCLE-5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. HINDUSTHAN NATIONAL GLASS AND INDUSTRIESLIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as being infructuous

ITA 338/KOL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 148ASection 14ASection 250

condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 2. The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. Whether on the feats and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs 4,74,22,91l/- (3,94,98,436 +7924473) made

NAGREEKA FOILS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 6(3), KOLKATA

ITA 1789/KOL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jul 2025AY 2013-2014
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 40a

condone the delay and admit the appeal for A.Y. 2011-12 for adjudication. 2. Since the issues in all the appeals are common except for an additional issue in A.Y. 2011-12, all the appeals were heard together and are being decided vide this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity.. The assessee is in appeal before

NAGREEKA FOILS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 3, , KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee for AYs

ITA 1930/KOL/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jul 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36

condone the delay and admit the appeal for A.Y. 2011-12 for adjudication. 2. Since the issues in all the appeals are common except for an additional issue in A.Y. 2011-12, all the appeals were heard together and are being decided vide this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity.. The assessee is in appeal before

NAGREEKA FOILS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 3(1), KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee for AYs

ITA 1788/KOL/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jul 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36

condone the delay and admit the appeal for A.Y. 2011-12 for adjudication. 2. Since the issues in all the appeals are common except for an additional issue in A.Y. 2011-12, all the appeals were heard together and are being decided vide this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity.. The assessee is in appeal before

JAI KANKARIA FOUNDATION,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), EXEMPT,, KOLKATA

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

ITA 2146/KOL/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Nov 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishraआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.2146/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-2020) Jai Kankaria Foundation Vs Cpc, Bangalore/ 5, Middleton Street, Kolkata Ito Ward-1(1), Exempt, Kolkata Pan No. :Aaatj 2147 F (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri Soumitra Choudhury & Shri Pranobesh Sarkar, Advocates रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sandeep Kumar Mehta, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 24/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, Jm : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Addl/Cit(A)-7, Delhi, Dated 14.07.2025 For The Assessment Year 2019-2020 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Appeal Of The Assessee Has Been Dismissed By The Ld.Cit(A) On Account Of Delay Of 28 Days. In This Regard, Ld. Ar Drew Our Attention To The Judgment Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In Miscellaneous Application No.21 Of 2022 In Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 Of 2020, Dated 10.01.2022, Wherein The Hon’Ble Supreme Court Has Directed To Exclude The Period Of Limitation For The Period As Mentioned In The Said Judgment On Account Of Covid-19. The Relevant Observations Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court Are As Under :- 4. The Present Miscellaneous Application Has Been Filed By The Supreme Court Advocates-On-Record Association In The Context Of The Spread Of The New Variant Of The Covid-19 & The Drastic Surge In The Number Of Covid Cases Across The Country. Considering The Prevailing Conditions, The Applicants Are Seeking The Following:

For Respondent: Shri Sandeep Kumar Mehta, Sr. DR
Section 12ASection 138Section 143(1)

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay

JAMSHED ALAM,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 32,, KOLKATA

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

ITA 2379/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Dec 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishraआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.2379/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-2019) Jamshed Alam, Vs Dcit, Circle-32, Kolkata 108, Park Street, Park Circus Kolkata, West Bengal-700017 Pan No. :Acupa 0330 M (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri Sunil Surana, Ar रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Dr. Anup Biswas, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 29/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29/12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 10.10.2025 For The Assessment Year 2018-2019. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Appeal Of The Assessee Has Been Dismissed By The Ld.Cit(A) On Account Of Delay Of 66 Days. In This Regard, Ld. Ar Drew Our Attention To The Judgment Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In Miscellaneous Application No.21 Of 2022 In Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 Of 2020, Dated 10.01.2022, Wherein The Hon’Ble Supreme Court Has Directed To Exclude The Period Of Limitation For The Period As Mentioned In The Said Judgment On Account Of Covid-19. The Relevant Observations Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court Are As Under :- 4. The Present Miscellaneous Application Has Been Filed By The Supreme Court Advocates-On-Record Association In The Context Of The Spread Of The New Variant Of The Covid-19 & The Drastic Surge In The Number Of Covid Cases Across The Country.

For Respondent: Dr. Anup Biswas, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 138

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay

MILK MANTRA DAIRY (P) LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIR.-12(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 413/KOL/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14 Milk Mantra Dairy Pvt. Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of Pan: Aagcm1112L Income-Tax Vs. 7Th Floor, Z Tower, Patia Circle-12(1) Nandan Kanan Road, Kolkata. Bhubaneswar-751024. (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Rajib Sharma & Shri Jai Somani, Ars Respondent By : Shri Sudipta Guha, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.07.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of Cit(A)-4, Kolkata In Appeal No. 491/Cit(A)-4/16-17 Dated 03.02.2020 Against The Assessment Order Of Dcit, Circle-12(1), Kolkata Passed U/S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”) Dated 13.01.2017. 2. There Is A Delay Of 73 Days In Filing The Present Appeal For Which A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Is Placed On Record. From The Condonation Petition, We Note That The Present Appeal Ought To Have Been Filed On Or Before 17.04.2020 Which Falls During The Lockdown Period On Account Of Pandemic Of Covid-19. It Is Requested By The Assessee That Since It Is Prevented By Sufficient & Reasonable Cause, The Delay Of 73 Days In Filing The Appeal May Be Condoned & Appeal Be Admitted For Meritorious Disposal. We Have Heard Both The Sides & Find That Vide Order Dated 10.01.2022, Hon’Ble Supreme Court Has Directed That The Period From 15.03.2020 To 28.02.2022 Is To Be Excluded For The Purpose Of Computing The 2 Milk Mantra Dairy (P) Ltd. A.Y. 2013-14 Limitation Period During The Covid-19 Pandemic. Further, A Period Of 90 Days Is Allowed After 28.02.2022 Vide Same Order. Considering The Facts & The Explanation Of The Assessee, We Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal & Admit It For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Rajib Sharma & Shri Jai Somani, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Sudipta Guha, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)

condone the delay in filing the appeal and admit it for adjudication. 3. Grounds taken by the assessee in the present appeal are reproduced as under: 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(Appeals) erred in confirming addition made by the Assessing Officer to the extent of Rs. 6.8 crores as share

JCIT(OSD), CIRCLE -4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S GILLANDER ARBITHNOT & CO. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 744/KOL/2012[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Oct 2015AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri S. M. Surana, Advocate & Shri Sunil Surana, ACA
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 43B

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. It is also noticed that the revenue has moved adjourned petition in almost 19 cases out of the listed case of 23. This en block adjournment is not possible and hence, the possible case, we have taken up for hearing and decided the issue by rejecting the adjournment petition

INTERNATIONAL SEAPORT (HALDIA) PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT, -2, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 211/KOL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm International Seaport (Haldia) Pvt. Ltd. Pcit, 2 C/O S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Aaykar Bhawan, P-7, Advocates, 2 Garstin Place, 2 Nd Chowringhee Square, Vs. Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Kolkata-700069, West Bengal Street, Kolkata-700001, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci9468D Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Ar Revenue By : Shri S. Datta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.02.2026

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Datta, DR
Section 12ASection 138Section 143(3)Section 263

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay

ITO, WARD 10(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. ALEX TRADECOM PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2198/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.2197 & 2198/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Ito, Ward-10(2), Kolkata…………..…………………………….…….……Appellant Vs. Alex Tradecom Pvt. Ltd…………..……………….………...……...…..…..Respondent 4, Ratan Sarkar Garden Street, Burrabazar, Kol- 700069. [Pan: Aajca6146P] Appearances By: Smt. Madhumita Das, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Akshay Ringasia, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 15, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 27, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: Both The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Revenue For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Against Separate Orders Dated 05.08.2024 & 26.07.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. 2. Both The Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue With Delays Of 38 Days. The Revenue Has Filed Separate Affidavits For Condonation Of The Delays. After Considering The Reasons Cited In The Affidavits For Condonation Of Delay, We Find That The Reasons Are Valid And

Section 148Section 148ASection 250

delays in filing both the appeals are hereby condoned and we proceed to dispose of the appeals on merits. 3. ITA No.2197/Kol/2024 for Assessment Year 2013-14 – For the sake of convenience and narrations of facts, this appeal is taken as lead case. 4. At the time of argument, the ld. counsel appeared on behalf of the assessee raised

ITO, WARD-10(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. ALEX TRADECOM PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2197/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.2197 & 2198/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Ito, Ward-10(2), Kolkata…………..…………………………….…….……Appellant Vs. Alex Tradecom Pvt. Ltd…………..……………….………...……...…..…..Respondent 4, Ratan Sarkar Garden Street, Burrabazar, Kol- 700069. [Pan: Aajca6146P] Appearances By: Smt. Madhumita Das, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Akshay Ringasia, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 15, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 27, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: Both The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Revenue For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Against Separate Orders Dated 05.08.2024 & 26.07.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. 2. Both The Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue With Delays Of 38 Days. The Revenue Has Filed Separate Affidavits For Condonation Of The Delays. After Considering The Reasons Cited In The Affidavits For Condonation Of Delay, We Find That The Reasons Are Valid And

Section 148Section 148ASection 250

delays in filing both the appeals are hereby condoned and we proceed to dispose of the appeals on merits. 3. ITA No.2197/Kol/2024 for Assessment Year 2013-14 – For the sake of convenience and narrations of facts, this appeal is taken as lead case. 4. At the time of argument, the ld. counsel appeared on behalf of the assessee raised

ITO, WARD-8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. SARGA HOTEL PVT. LTD. , KOLKATA.

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 665/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 2. The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: I. ITA No. 664/KOL/2023: “1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) (NFAC) Delhi is erred in not considering disallowance made by the AO on account of business expenditure

MC NALLY SAYAJI ENGINEERING LIMITED,NORTH 24 PARGANAS vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 1,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 927/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

For Appellant: Smt. Shreya Loyalka, CAFor Respondent: Md. Ghayas Uddin, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

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 6 ITA Nos.2776/A/2011,1575/K/2011 & 927/K/.2013 Mc Nally Sayaji Engg. Ltd.., AY 2008-09 & 2009-10 the outstanding interest demand as of date is concerned, it would