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.

125 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 145clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai191Chennai132Kolkata125Karnataka123Delhi110Jaipur85Chandigarh75Bangalore69Ahmedabad69Pune47Hyderabad41Calcutta36Surat27Lucknow23Cochin21Indore19Nagpur16Patna14Cuttack13Raipur10Amritsar9Jodhpur9Rajkot8SC5Visakhapatnam4Allahabad4Dehradun3Varanasi3Telangana3Agra2Panaji2Jabalpur1Andhra Pradesh1Rajasthan1Orissa1Ranchi1

Key Topics

Addition to Income75Section 14768Section 14867Condonation of Delay59Section 143(3)45Section 25035Limitation/Time-bar35Section 14A31Section 68

BHARAT TIRTHA RICE MILL,BURDWAN EAST vs. PCIT, ASANSOL, ASANSOL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 373/KOL/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Oct 2022AY 2017-2018

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

Section 249Section 253Section 263Section 3Section 5

condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal on merit. 10. The grievance of the assessee is that the ld. CIT has erred in taking cognizance under section 263 of the Income Tax Act and thereby setting aside the assessment order for passing a fresh assessment order. 11. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed

ACIT, CIRCLE - 4(2), KOLKATA vs. M/S. MANAKSIA LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed

Showing 1–20 of 125 · Page 1 of 7

26
Section 69A26
Section 115J24
Survey u/s 133A22
ITA 1611/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year : 2014-15 Acit, Circle-4(2), Kolkata M/S. Manaksia Limited 8/1, Lalbazar Street Vs Kolkata – 700 001 Pan : Aaach6882J अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) C.O. No. 13/Kol/2021 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Manaksia Limited Acit, Circle-4(2), Kolkata 8/1, Lalbazar Street Vs Kolkata – 700 001 Pan : Aaach6882J अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocae & Ms. Lata Goyal, Aca Revenue By : Shri Tushal Dhawal Singh, Cit, D/R

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocae & Ms. Lata Goyal, ACAFor Respondent: Shri Tushal Dhawal Singh, CIT, D/R
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253Section 5

Section 253 of the Act, authorizes the respondent to file cross-objection against any part of the impugned order by which it is aggrieved. The procedure contemplated in the Income Tax Rules, 1962 and followed by the Registry is that on receipt of an appeal from the appellant it issues notice to the respondent. Though it is not a notice

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MURLIDHAR RATANLAL EXPORTS LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the COs of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2179/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tulsyan &For Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, DR
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

condone the delay and admit the appeals of the revenue for adjudication. A.Y. 2013-14 CO No. 42/KOL/2025 04. Since, the assessee has raised legal issue in cross objection filed, challenging the validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on the ground that the conditions envisaged in proviso to Section

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MURLIDHAR RATANLAL EXPORTS LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the COs of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2187/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tulsyan &For Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, DR
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

condone the delay and admit the appeals of the revenue for adjudication. A.Y. 2013-14 CO No. 42/KOL/2025 04. Since, the assessee has raised legal issue in cross objection filed, challenging the validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on the ground that the conditions envisaged in proviso to Section

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MURLIDHAR RATANLAL EXPORTS LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the COs of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2196/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tulsyan &For Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, DR
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

condone the delay and admit the appeals of the revenue for adjudication. A.Y. 2013-14 CO No. 42/KOL/2025 04. Since, the assessee has raised legal issue in cross objection filed, challenging the validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on the ground that the conditions envisaged in proviso to Section

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 4 KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MURLIDHAR RATANLAL EXPORTS LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the COs of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2245/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tulsyan &For Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, DR
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

condone the delay and admit the appeals of the revenue for adjudication. A.Y. 2013-14 CO No. 42/KOL/2025 04. Since, the assessee has raised legal issue in cross objection filed, challenging the validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on the ground that the conditions envisaged in proviso to Section

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MURLIDHAR RATANLAL EXPORTS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the\nCOs of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2178/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Oct 2025AY 2013-14
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

condone the delay and admit the\nappeals of the revenue for adjudication.\nA.Y. 2013-14\nCO No. 42/KOL/2025\n04. Since, the assessee has raised legal issue in cross objection filed,\nchallenging the validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the\nIncome-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on the ground that the conditions\nenvisaged in proviso to Section

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

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

145(3) of the Act. We note that it was with 19 ITA No. 2149/Kol/2019 & C.O. No. 22/Kol/2020 M/s Century Plyboards (I) Ltd. A.Y. 2014-15 a view to further verify the averments of the assessee and in exercise of his co-terminus powers that the ld. CIT(A)had issued enhancement notice u/s 251 of the Act and, thereafter

DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. BRG IRON AND STEEL COMPANY PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 971/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Dcit, Circle-(1), Kolkata Vs. M/S. Brg Iron & Steel Company Pvt. Ltd. Suit No.402,403,404, Plot No.5, Block-Dp, Salt Lake Sector-5, Godrej Waterside Building, Kol. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccb2175L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 14Section 143(2)Section 144Section 271(1)(b)

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are as follows: “01. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the cases and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 20624601/- on account of estimated net profit? 2 M/s. BRG Iron

ARIES DESIGNERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1(1), KOLKATA

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

ITA 1876/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Mar 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 143(2)Section 145(3)

delay is hereby condoned. 3. Brief facts of the case of the assessee are that the assessee engaged in the business of trading in gray fabrics and investment in real estate projects, filed its return of income for AY 2017-18 declaring total income of Rs. 1,78,150/-. The case was selected for scrutiny, notices

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. EMAS EXPRESSWAY PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 1162/KOL/2023[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Mar 2025AY 2005-2006

Bench: SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(1)Section 250

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 2. This appeal arises from order passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereafter ‘the Act] by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereafter “the Ld. CIT(A)], vide order dated 09.01.2023. 2.1 Brief facts of the case are that

CENTURY ENKA LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 6, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 335/KOL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 May 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Akash Mansinka, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Niraj Kumar, CIT, DR & Shri A. K. Sinha, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 43B

condone the delay and admit the revenue’s appeal for hearing. 3. The only issue to be decided in this appeal of revenue is that with regard to the allowance of leave encashment of Rs.1,47,66,197/-. 4. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) had allowed

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. CENTURY ENKA LTD., KOLKATA

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

ITA 665/KOL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 May 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Akash Mansinka, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Niraj Kumar, CIT, DR & Shri A. K. Sinha, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 43B

condone the delay and admit the revenue’s appeal for hearing. 3. The only issue to be decided in this appeal of revenue is that with regard to the allowance of leave encashment of Rs.1,47,66,197/-. 4. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) had allowed

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-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

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

ACIT, CC-3(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. SNOWTEX INVESTMENT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1799/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.) Asstt. Year : 2012-13 A.C.I.T, Cc-3(2), Kolkata Vs M/S. Snowtex Investment Ltd. Pan: Aaecs 0334C (Assessee/Department) (Respondent/Assessee)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Sr. Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT, ld.DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 3. The grievances raised by the Revenue are as follows:- 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law to hold that disallowance under section 14A read with rule 8D will not apply where no exempt income is received

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

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