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.

55 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 194clear

Sorted by relevance

Karnataka103Mumbai88Chennai72Delhi72Jaipur58Kolkata55Nagpur54Calcutta34Pune33Chandigarh30Bangalore23Cuttack10Visakhapatnam9Indore9Surat9Ahmedabad8Hyderabad7SC7Raipur6Rajkot5Amritsar3Cochin3Allahabad3Dehradun2Patna2Telangana1Jodhpur1Andhra Pradesh1Lucknow1Orissa1Rajasthan1Agra1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 26361Addition to Income32Section 143(3)31Condonation of Delay30Section 14A26Limitation/Time-bar24Section 6819Disallowance19Section 250

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

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 866/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jul 2025AY 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

RAJPAL GUPTA,HOWRAH vs. I.T.O., WARD - 47(1),, KOLKATA

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

Showing 1–20 of 55 · Page 1 of 3

18
Section 14715
Section 40A(3)12
Deduction12
ITA 1276/KOL/2025[2019-2020]Status: Disposed
ITAT Kolkata
30 Oct 2025
AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 1276/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Rajpal Gupta,…………………………………..……Appellant 103/25, Foreshore Road, Shibpur, Howrah-711102, West Bengal [Pan:Adtpg4725E] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………..Respondent Ward-47(1), Kolkata, 3, Government Place (West), Kolkata-700001 Appearances By: Shri Avijit Ghosal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Mrinmay Basak, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: October 14, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: October 30, 2025 O R D E R

Section 271ASection 69C

194 days. Hence the delay is condoned. 4. Facts in brief are that the assessee is an individual, who filed his return of income for the AY 2019-20 declaring taxable income at Rs.6,32,140/-. On the basis of inputs received from CGST authority, the Directorate of Income Tax (Inv.), Kolkata conducted an inquiry and it is found that

SHRI GOBINDO CHATTERJEE,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WD-50(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1396/KOL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 51

delay of 471 days is hereby condoned and we admit the appeal for adjudication in the interest of substantial justice. 3. The only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld CITA was justified in upholding the additions made in the sums of Rs. 2,26,86,028/- towards proprietor’s capital account

M/S. GOLDLINE DEALERS PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 9(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 608/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Sri Rajesh Kumar

Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal on merit. 6. The assessee has taken 7 grounds of appeal. However, all the grounds are theoretical and peripheral in nature without specifically pointing out the grievance. In brief, the grievance is that ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 4,70,26,000/- added

MOLOY PAUL,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 49(3), KOLKATA

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

ITA 2516/KOL/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 May 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 2516/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Moloy Paul,………………………..……..…………Appellant C/O. Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069 [Pan:Alrpp2847A] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………….…………...Respondent Ward-49(3), Kolkata, Income Tax Office, Manicktala, Civil Centre Uttarapan Complex, Ds-Iv, Kolkata-700067 Appearances By: Shri Siddarth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri L.N. Dash, Addl. Cit(D.R.), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: March 12, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: May 27, 2025 O R D E R

194 days. Hence the delay is condoned. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income electronically on 31.03.2017 declaring total income of Rs.6,58,300/-. Thereafter the case was selected for scrutiny through CASS. The reason for selection of scrutiny of this case “large value of imports shown in the export import data

PAWAN KUMAR AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT, CENTRAL - 2, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 1898/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jan 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No. 1895/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Vinod Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acrpa 8096 M] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1896/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Shyam Sundar Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acypa 7814 N] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1897/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Ram Naresh Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acypa 1903 G] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1898/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Pawan Kumar Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Actpa 2421 L] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate For The Respondent : Md. Usman, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 03.01.2018. Shri Vinod Agarwal & Ors. A.Yr.2013-14 Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Md. Usman, CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 263Section 263o

delay in filing these appeals deserve to be condoned and the same is hereby condoned. 8. The Assessees in all these four appeals are individuals. There was a search and seizure operation carried out by the revenue under the provision of section 132 of the Act on 10.05.2012 against the assessees and various business concerns of Srijan Group at various

VINOD AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL-2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 1895/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jan 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No. 1895/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Vinod Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acrpa 8096 M] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1896/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Shyam Sundar Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acypa 7814 N] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1897/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Ram Naresh Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acypa 1903 G] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1898/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Pawan Kumar Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Actpa 2421 L] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate For The Respondent : Md. Usman, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 03.01.2018. Shri Vinod Agarwal & Ors. A.Yr.2013-14 Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Md. Usman, CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 263Section 263o

delay in filing these appeals deserve to be condoned and the same is hereby condoned. 8. The Assessees in all these four appeals are individuals. There was a search and seizure operation carried out by the revenue under the provision of section 132 of the Act on 10.05.2012 against the assessees and various business concerns of Srijan Group at various

RAM NARESH AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL-2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 1897/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jan 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No. 1895/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Vinod Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acrpa 8096 M] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1896/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Shyam Sundar Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acypa 7814 N] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1897/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Ram Naresh Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acypa 1903 G] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1898/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Pawan Kumar Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Actpa 2421 L] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate For The Respondent : Md. Usman, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 03.01.2018. Shri Vinod Agarwal & Ors. A.Yr.2013-14 Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Md. Usman, CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 263Section 263o

delay in filing these appeals deserve to be condoned and the same is hereby condoned. 8. The Assessees in all these four appeals are individuals. There was a search and seizure operation carried out by the revenue under the provision of section 132 of the Act on 10.05.2012 against the assessees and various business concerns of Srijan Group at various

SHYAM SUNDAR AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT, CENTRAL - 2, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 1896/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jan 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No. 1895/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Vinod Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acrpa 8096 M] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1896/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Shyam Sundar Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acypa 7814 N] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1897/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Ram Naresh Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acypa 1903 G] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1898/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Pawan Kumar Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Actpa 2421 L] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate For The Respondent : Md. Usman, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 03.01.2018. Shri Vinod Agarwal & Ors. A.Yr.2013-14 Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Md. Usman, CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 263Section 263o

delay in filing these appeals deserve to be condoned and the same is hereby condoned. 8. The Assessees in all these four appeals are individuals. There was a search and seizure operation carried out by the revenue under the provision of section 132 of the Act on 10.05.2012 against the assessees and various business concerns of Srijan Group at various

KAUSHAL KUMAR,RANIGANJ vs. ITO, WARD 3(1),, ASANSOL

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

ITA 2619/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Feb 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 43B

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2. The Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: ITA No(s).: 2618 & 2619/KOL/2025 AY(s): 2019-20 & 2020-21 Kaushal Kumar. I. ITA No. 2618/KOL/2025; AY 2019-20: “1. For that confirmation of disallowance of ESI and EPF expenses of Rs.22

KAUSHAL KUMAR,RANIGANJ vs. ITO, WARD 3(1),, ASANSOL

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

ITA 2618/KOL/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Feb 2026AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 43B

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2. The Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: ITA No(s).: 2618 & 2619/KOL/2025 AY(s): 2019-20 & 2020-21 Kaushal Kumar. I. ITA No. 2618/KOL/2025; AY 2019-20: “1. For that confirmation of disallowance of ESI and EPF expenses of Rs.22

PEE KAY VANIJYA PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 7(1), KOLKATA

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

ITA 851/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Akkal Dudhwewala, ARFor Respondent: S.B. Chakraborthy, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 250

delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 5. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a resident Indian Company, filed its return of income electronically on 30.10.2017 declaring total income of Rs. 8,080/-. The case was selected for complete (CASS) scrutiny assessment as per existing norms

SATYA PRAKASH SHARMA ,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT, KOLKATA - 12, KOLKATA

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

ITA 2574/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am]

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

194 days happened when assessee filed this appeal, which according to him is not intentional and pleads that delay be condoned. Since there is no quarrel in-respect of the facts which led to the delay we are of the opinion that the assessee should not be penalized for the ignorance of the AR as discussed. Therefore, we are inclined

SATYA PRAKASH SHARMA ,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT, KOLKATA - 12, KOLKATA

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

ITA 2576/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am]

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

194 days happened when assessee filed this appeal, which according to him is not intentional and pleads that delay be condoned. Since there is no quarrel in-respect of the facts which led to the delay we are of the opinion that the assessee should not be penalized for the ignorance of the AR as discussed. Therefore, we are inclined

SATYA PRAKASH SHARMA ,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT, KOLKATA - 12, KOLKATA

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

ITA 2575/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am]

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

194 days happened when assessee filed this appeal, which according to him is not intentional and pleads that delay be condoned. Since there is no quarrel in-respect of the facts which led to the delay we are of the opinion that the assessee should not be penalized for the ignorance of the AR as discussed. Therefore, we are inclined

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S CENTRAL BUSINESS SERVICES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee dismissed

ITA 111/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi] I.T.A. No. 111/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 144ASection 194Section 250

condone the delay and admit appeal admitted. 3. The assessee is company and is in the business of investments in shares and securities and financing activities and derives rental income. The short point 2 I.T.A. No. 111/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Central Business Services Ltd for our adjudication is as to whether the ld. CIT(A) was right

I.T.O WD - 8(3),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S RUIA SONS PVT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result the appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 365/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm] I.T.A No. 365/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2009-10 I.T.O., Ward-8(3), -Vs.- M/S. Ruia Sons Pvt. Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaccr 3949 Q] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri Arup Kumar Sinha, Cit For The Respondent : Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate

For Appellant: Shri Arup Kumar Sinha, CITFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 194JSection 301Section 40

condone the delay and admit the appeal for regular hearing. 3. The brief facts arising in this case are that the assessee company filed its return of income for A.Y.2009-10 on 24.09.2009 declaring loss of Rs.30,97,3290/-. Notices u/s 143(2) and 143(1) of the Act were issued to the assessee and as and when called

SUNBLAZE CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 9(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1788/KOL/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Jan 2026AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Ito, Ward 9(1) Sunblaze Constructions Pvt. Ltd. 164/1, Maniktala Main Road, Aaykar Bhawan, P-7, Kankurgachi, S.O. Kolkata- Chowringhee Square, Kolkata- Vs. 700054, West Bengal 700069, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aascs7903D Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan & Ms. Puja Somani, Ars Revenue By : Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.01.2026

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan &For Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR
Section 148Section 148A

condone the delay in fling the appeal. The appeal will now be heard on merits in the following paras. 3. The assessee has raised additional ground qua the notice u/s 148 of the Act being time barred by limitation in consonance with the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India and other

KAZI ZAINAL ABSAR,ASANSOL vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), ASANSOL

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

ITA 348/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 194Section 250Section 40

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2. The assessee is in appeal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1) For that on the facts of the case the Ld. CIT (A) was not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs. 6,29,865/- for non deduction of TDS u/s 40(a)(ia), for payments made against interest

DCIT, CIRCLE-MURSHIDABAD, MURSHIDABAD vs. M/S GOLDEN MOTORS, MURSHIDABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 409/KOL/2012[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Dec 2017AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:2005-06

Section 143(3)Section 194

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. None appeared for the assessee. However, after going through the records we find that the case is very old and on earlier occasions also the assessee failed to appear despite the fact that various notices were issue to the assessee. Hence, after hearing the submissions