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.

145 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 154(7)clear

Sorted by relevance

Patna472Delhi389Mumbai361Chennai298Pune235Bangalore226Kolkata145Karnataka131Ahmedabad111Hyderabad104Nagpur102Jaipur90Chandigarh79Visakhapatnam75Surat58Amritsar55Indore46Lucknow42Cochin38Calcutta34Raipur28Rajkot21Cuttack20Guwahati18Jodhpur17Agra17Allahabad10SC9Jabalpur8Ranchi5Telangana4Varanasi4Panaji4Orissa1Andhra Pradesh1Rajasthan1Dehradun1

Key Topics

Section 15493Section 143(1)62Section 26359Condonation of Delay57Section 25054Addition to Income51Section 143(3)47Section 9044Section 148

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

7 Assessment Year: 2016-17 The West Bengal National University of Juridical Science The West Bengal National University of Juridical Science section 10, shall not be treated as application of income for charitable or religious ot be treated as application of income for charitable or religious ot be treated as application of income for charitable or religious purposes, either during

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

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

Showing 1–20 of 145 · Page 1 of 8

...
39
Limitation/Time-bar37
Section 14733
Rectification u/s 15432
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

7. In our opinion, the assessee cannot be treated as a litigant who was not interested in pursuing the legal remedy against the assessment order. It was only on account of wrong legal advice that the assessee did not pursue the appeal. Filing of petition u/s 154 and thereafter appeal before Ld. CIT(A) clearly vindicates the assessee's claim

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

section 5 is proved, the application must not be thrown out or any delay cannot be refused to be condoned. (h) In O.P. Kathpatia v. Lakhmir Singh AIR 1984 SC 1744, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if the refusal to condone the delay results in grave miscarriage of justice; it would be a ground to condone the delay

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

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. The Appellant had preferred appeal before ld. CIT(A) against the same and the ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal by observing thus: “The first notice was issued to the appellant fixing the hearing on 07.12.2015. But none attended on this date. The case was re-fixed through another notice and date of hearing

HIMADRI VINIMAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, (OSD), WARD-1(1), KOLKATA

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

ITA 821/KOL/2024[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 127Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

condoning the delay though appellant has submitted a reasonable cause of delay of 17 days. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that in fact, there was a delay of only 17 days in filing of appeal as could be seen from Form-35, the date of service of notice of demand was 20.04.2018 and appeal was filed

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

7 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 & Assessment Year : 2019-2020 L & T Finance Limited Keeping in mind the above facts, we 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

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

7 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 & Assessment Year : 2019-2020 L & T Finance Limited Keeping in mind the above facts, we 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

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

7. That then Sri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate prepared the appeal papers and finally the same was filed on 15.03.2024 before the Hon'ble Tribunal with a delay of 85 days. 8. That your petitioner prays that in the facts and circumstances stated above, the delay of 85 days in filing appeal before the Ld. Tribunal be condoned and the appeal

PANDAVESWAR COLLIERY EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,DURGAPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(4), DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3023/KOL/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Apr 2026AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 234Section 250Section 80ASection 80PSection 97

154 was issued in violation of provisions 143(1)(a)(v) of Income Tax Act, 1961 for the time being in force and as applicable for the Asst, year 2019-20 and hence the said intimation as issued is illegal and bad in law. b) For that the learned CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the disallowance of deduction

THE PEERLESS GEN. FIN. & INV. CO. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 879/KOL/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Sept 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara] I.T.A. No. 879/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2003-04 The Peerless Gen. Fin. & Inv. Co. Ltd…………......…….............................................…………….…….……...Appellant 3, Esplanade East Kolkata – 700 069 [Pan: Aabct 3042 L] Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax , Circle-3(1), Kolkata…….…………..……………………..…. Respondent

Section 154Section 234CSection 244ASection 250Section 251

delay is condoned and appeal admitted. 5. We have heard rival contentions. On careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, perusal of the papers on record, orders of the authorities below as well as case law cited, we hold as follows:- 6. The first contention of the assessee is that the showcause notice issued by the Assessing

DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. THE PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE & INVESTMENT CO. LTD.,, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1385/KOL/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Sept 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara] I.T.A. No. 879/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2003-04 The Peerless Gen. Fin. & Inv. Co. Ltd…………......…….............................................…………….…….……...Appellant 3, Esplanade East Kolkata – 700 069 [Pan: Aabct 3042 L] Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax , Circle-3(1), Kolkata…….…………..……………………..…. Respondent

Section 154Section 234CSection 244ASection 250Section 251

delay is condoned and appeal admitted. 5. We have heard rival contentions. On careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, perusal of the papers on record, orders of the authorities below as well as case law cited, we hold as follows:- 6. The first contention of the assessee is that the showcause notice issued by the Assessing

KARMICK SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-5(4),KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 641/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

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

Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

7. In the light of the above, we are of the view that while making this appeal time barred, the assessee will not give anything. The delay has not been adopted by the assessee as a strategy to litigate with the Revenue. The delay is the result of human lapses and, therefore, we condone the delay in filing the appeal

SAHABUDDIN QUADIRI,MURSHIDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-42, MURSHIDABAD, MURSHIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1617/KOL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini[Assessment Year: 2010-11] Sahabuddin Quadiri, Vs Dcit, Saratpally, Chuanpur, Circle-42, Laldighi, 57, Berhampore, R.N.Tagore Road, Berhampore, Murshidabad-742101. Murshidabad-742101. Pan-Aaapq7976P (Assessee) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 5. By way of this appeal, the assessee appellant has challenged correctness of the order dated 30.03.2015, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT)-14, SAHABUDDIN QUADIRI [Assessment Year: 2010-11] Kolkata, for the assessment year 2010-11. Grievances raised by the assessee are as follows. (1) That

BILATIBARI TEA COMPANY PVT. LTD.,ISLAMPUR, NORTH DINAJPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), JALPAIGURI , JALPAIGURI

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

ITA 1078/KOL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Oct 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 154Section 250Section 5

7) SCC 123], this Court held: "It is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the court. Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. Length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Sometimes

FATHER LEBLOND TRUST,DARJEELING vs. CPC, BENGALURU, BENGALURU

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

ITA 1577/KOL/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Dec 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 11Section 12ASection 139Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. ITA No.: 1577/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Father Leblond Trust. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the impugned Rectification Order under section 154 in relation to the Intimation

CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-1(1),, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1220/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Oct 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 1220/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2020-2021 Cathay Pacific Airways Limited,…………….…Appellant Room No. 14, 3Rd Floor, New Integrated Cargo Terminal, Nscbi Airport, Kolkata-700052 [Pan:Aabcc5644E] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,..…….Respondent (International Taxation), Circle-1(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Em Bye-Pass, Kolkata-700107 Appearances By: Shri Pratyush Jhunjhunwala, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Sm. Archana Gupta, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: August 06, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: October 14, 2025 O R D E R

Section 143(1)Section 3

delay is condoned. 4. The facts in brief are that the appellant is a non-resident company. The appellant is engaged in the business of operation of aircraft in international traffic. For the year under consideration, the appellant filed the return of income within the prescribed due date declaring total Income of Rs. 1,60,62,140/- and a refund

ITO(EXEMPTION),WARD-1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SURESH AMIYA MEMORIAL TRUST, KOLKATA

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

ITA 652/KOL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Kaustav Chakraborty &For Respondent: Shri Arup Chatterjee, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)Section 12A(1)(b)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 44A

Section 12(1)(b) of the Act were violated. The Revenue has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of PCIT vs. Wipro Ltd. [arising in SLP (Civil) No. 7620/2021] dated 11th July, 2022. The ld. CIT (A) allowed the relief to the assessee and the relevant extract from the order

DCIT CIR-4(1), KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. MCLEOD RUSSEL INDIA LTD, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1169/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 115OSection 143(2)Section 14ASection 80ISection 92C

delay is hereby condoned. 3. Brief facts of the case of the assessee are that the assessee company was engaged primarily in the business of cultivation and manufacture of tea, company filed return of income for AY 2013-14 declaring total income of Rs. 36,48,96,214/-. The return of income was selected for scrutiny, notices

DAROGA FAMILY FOUNDATION,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), KOLKATA

In the result, assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 719/KOL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Aug 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 154

154 of the Act it has been found suo moto that Form-10B has not been filed hence, exemption has been denied. The contention of ld. Counsel for the assessee is that when he got notice to file the non-submission of Form-10B, he immediately filed it on 02.07.2022 as according to him that order dated 27.03.2023 rejecting