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.

80 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 195clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi227Mumbai177Chennai175Karnataka106Kolkata80Bangalore57Jaipur39Ahmedabad38Calcutta35Pune35Visakhapatnam20Hyderabad16Lucknow14Indore12Chandigarh7Rajkot7Varanasi6Surat6Raipur5Cuttack4Agra3Amritsar3Nagpur3SC3Telangana3Cochin2Patna2Jodhpur2Andhra Pradesh1Panaji1Allahabad1Rajasthan1Orissa1

Key Topics

Section 26377Section 143(3)58Addition to Income50Section 6841Condonation of Delay34Limitation/Time-bar28Section 143(1)27Section 12A24Section 10(38)

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

section (3) are entitled in the aggregate, at any time during the previous year, to not less than twenty pe aggregate, at any time during the previous year, to not less than twenty pe aggregate, at any time during the previous year, to not less than twenty per cent of the profits of such concern.] the profits of such concern

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

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

Showing 1–20 of 80 · Page 1 of 4

23
Section 25020
Exemption19
Section 1118
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

DEEPAK SWITCH GEARS PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. PCIT, ASANSOL, ASANSOL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 809/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.809/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Deepak Switch Gears Pvt. Ltd….…......................…...……………....Appellant 48/6, Suman Villa, 2Nd Floor, 155, Jessore Road, Kolkata-700055. [Pan: Aabcd1131H] Vs. Pcit, Asansol….....….........................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri A. K. Tibrewal, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 08, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 07, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Revision Order Dated 30.12.2022 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Pr. Cit’] Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In This Appeal Has Agitated Against The Action Of The Pr. Cit In Exercising His Revision Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Act & Thereby Directing The Assessing Officer To Frame The Assessment Afresh. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That The Appeal Is Time-Barred By 158 Days. A Separate Application Of Condonation Of Delay Has Been Filed, Wherein, It Has Been Pleaded That After Receipt Of The Impugned Order Of The Pr. Cit, The Assessee, Through Its Director, Shri Deep Kishan Saraf, Immediately Approached One Shri Pawan Kumar Agarwal, Chartered

Section 253Section 263Section 5

delay in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned and we proceed to decide the appeal on merits. I.T.A. No.809/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Deepak Switch Gears Pvt. Ltd 6. The brief facts of the case are that as noted from the order of the ld. Pr. CIT are that the assessee filed return of income for the year under

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

GRAPHITE INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 618/KOL/2022[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Jan 2023AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 618/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2020-2021 Graphite India Limited,.........................Appellant 31, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata-700016 [Pan: Aaacc0457C] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Circle-11(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069

Section 200ASection 201Section 249(2)Section 249(3)

condone the delay in fining the appeal. 8. The facts emerging out from the record are that assessee-company is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of Graphite Electrodes. It has paid commission to its non-resident direct or individual amounting to Rs.20,00,00,000/- on 03.07.2019 (before 01.08.2019). It has deducted the tax under section 195

DCIT, CIR-5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. PROFICIENT COMMODITIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee in CO No

ITA 1346/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1346/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Ram Bilash Meena, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

condone the delay and admit the cross objection of the assessee for hearing. M/s Proficient Commodities Pvt. Ltd. M/s Proficient Commodities Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.1346/Kol/2016&C. O. No. 2016&C. O. No. 36/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: Assessment Year:2012-13 6. At the outset itself, the ld. Counsel for . At the outset itself, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that

ITO, WARD - 1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ATN INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1531/KOL/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Oct 2016AY 2004-05

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajat Kr. Kureel, JCIT, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Miraj D. Shah, AR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 73

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the revenue for adjudication. 3. The first issue to be decided in the appeal of the revenue is as to whether the ld CITA is justified in treating the loss of Rs. 85,84,968/- as business loss as against the speculation loss treated by the ld AO in the facts

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

195 ITR 825 (Calcutta). Page 2 of 5 I.T.A. No.: 719/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Daroga Family Foundation. 4. We have perused the fact of the case of the assessee and find that the assessee is a charitable Trust filed its return of income on 02.11.2021 though the due date was 15.03.2022 in which it has been mentioned that Form

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

DCIT, CIR-4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S GOODRICKE GROUP LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 971/KOL/2015[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Aug 2017AY 2007-2008

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 971/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2007-08 Dcit, Circle-4(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Goodricke Group Ltd., Kolkata [Pan: Aabcg1614Q] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sallong Yadav, Addl. CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri P.N. Rajendram, FCA
Section 143(3)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) dated 31.12.2009 for the Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. At the outset, we find that there is a delay of 10 days in filing the appeal before us by the revenue, for which an affidavit had been filed by the revenue duly explaining the reasons

ITO (EXEMPTION), WARD - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. INDIAN SUGAR MILLS ASSOCIATION, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 480/KOL/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 May 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 11Section 119(2)(b)

195 ITR 825 dated 22.04.1991 and (ii) Commissioner of Income Tax vs Hardeodas Agarwalla Trust reported in 198 ITR 511 dated 14.06.1991] CBDT has issued Circular No. 2/2020 dated 03.01.2020 authorizing CIT to decide on the issue of condonation of 2 AY: 2018-19 Indian Sugar Mills Association delay in filing Form 10B and therefore order passed

ACIT, CIR-5(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. BATIVALA & KARANI SECURITIES (INDIA) (P) LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1812/KOL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 1812/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Acit, Circle-5(2), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Batlivala & Karnani Securities (I)(P) Ltd. [Pan: Aabcb 4650 R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Robin Chowdhury, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Agarwal, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 40

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) dated 19.03.2013 for the Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. At the outset, there is a delay of 2 days in filing the appeal by the revenue. Due to the concession given by the ld AR, the same is hereby condoned and appeal of the revenue is hereby

BANSAL FOUNDATION,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1(2), EXEMPTION, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2235/KOL/2024[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Mar 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 2235/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2022-2023 Bansal Foundation,………………………...……Appellant White House, 3Rd Floor, 119, Park Street, Kolkata-700016 [Pan:Aadtb0630J] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………....Respondent Ward-1(2), (Exemption), 10B, Middleton Road, Kolkata-700071

Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 143(1)

section 11 of the Act cannot be denied due to delay in filing 3 Bansal Foundation of Form 10B. The ld. Counsel for the assessee heavily relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT -vs.- Rai Bahadur Bissesswarlal Motilal Malwasie Trust reported in (1992) 195 ITR 825, wherein the Hon’ble Jurisdictional

AMPI FOUNDATION,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 1(4), EXEMPT, , KOLKATA

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

ITA 365/KOL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraampi Foundation, Deputy Director Of Income Unimark Asian, 16Th Floor, Tax, Cpc, Bengaluru, 52/1, Shakespeare Sarani, (Jurisdictional Assessing Kolkata - 700017 Vs Officer, Ward 1(4), (Pan: Aadta8073A) Exempt, Kolkata, 10, Middleton Row, Kolkata - 700071 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Siddarth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Kallol Mistry, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 12A(1)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

section 12A of the Act and noted that since the appellant had filed its e- return on 31/10/2022 within the extended due date of 07/11/2022 and the audit report in Form No. 10B had been submitted on 28/09/2022 but was accepted by the assessee on 14/02/2023, which was beyond the specified date i.e. 07/10/2022 and as the audit report

M/S PARAMOUNT PROPERTIES & ESTATE DEVELOPMENTS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed on legal grounds

ITA 93/KOL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Dec 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmedi.T.A. No.93/Kol/2016 Assessment Year 2005-06 M/S. Paramount Properties & I.T.O., Wd-3(1), Kolkata. P-7, Chowringhee Square, Estate Developments Ltd. -Vs- Kolkata – 700 069. 3, Pretoria Street, 4Th Floor, Kolkata – 700 071. [Pan : Aabcp 8731 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

condone the said delay and proceed to dispose of this appeal of the assessee on merit. 4. In view of the above, we decided to proceed and to adjudicate the matter on the basis of materials available on record. The assessee in Ground Nos.1 & 2 has challenged the initiation of reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act. 5. Briefly stated

SALT LAKE SANSKRITIK SANSAD ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 40/KOL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 May 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 40/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2023-2024 Salt Lake Sanskritik Sansad,…………...……Appellant Sector-1, Trust Bhawan, Ca-49, Salt Lake, Kolkata-700064, West Bengal [Pan:Aaets4162K] -Vs.- Deputy Director Of Income Tax,................Respondent Circle Cpc, Bengaluru, Prestige Alpha, Post Bag No. 2, Electronic City Post, Hosur Road, Bangalore-560 100, Karnataka Appearances By: Shri N. Kausic, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: April 23, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: May 30, 2025 O R D E R

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 119(2)Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2

condone the delay in filing Form 10BB, but the assessee failed to do so. Therefore, the 3 Salt Lake Sanskritik Sansad ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. Therefore, he pleaded to uphold the orders passed by the revenue authorities. 7. I have perused the material available on record as well as the written submission

DCIT, CIRCLE-10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S INDIAN OIL PETRONAS (P) LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1885/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey)

Section 250Section 32(1)(iiia)Section 80

condone the delay of 424 days for the reason that the assessee became aware of its rights to claim for deduction, consequent to pronouncement of judgement of these issues by the ITAT. The legal position is that such legal claims can be made by the assessee at any stage of proceedings. The entire exercise of assessments and appeals should ultimately