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.

157 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 2(47)(v)clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai451Mumbai322Delhi289Bangalore167Kolkata157Karnataka146Ahmedabad120Jaipur93Chandigarh93Hyderabad76Raipur73Nagpur67Pune63Calcutta38Indore35Visakhapatnam34Lucknow34Cuttack29Rajkot24SC21Cochin16Patna14Surat13Telangana9Allahabad7Amritsar6Varanasi6Agra6Guwahati5Rajasthan4Jodhpur4Orissa3Andhra Pradesh1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 148124Section 147109Addition to Income70Section 143(3)52Condonation of Delay47Limitation/Time-bar35Disallowance29Section 115J28Section 132

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, ARs Shri Sudipta Guha, CIT, DR

Showing 1–20 of 157 · Page 1 of 8

...
27
Section 43B24
Section 26322
Section 143(2)20
For Respondent:
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

M/S MEDI DRIPS CARRIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-12(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 471/KOL/2014[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Mar 2017AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.471/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2008-2009) M/S Medi Drips Carries Pvt. Ltd Vs. Ito, Ward-12(4), 8Th Floor, R.No.818, P-7, Chowringhee Square, 4, Synagogue Street, Aayakar Bhawan, Kolkata-700001 Kolkata-700069 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcm 8139 Q .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ashish Rustogi, Aca Revenue By : Shri Saurav Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 01/03/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 08/03/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year 2008-09, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-Xii, Kolkata, In Appeal No.490/Xii/12(4)/10-11, Dated 11.11.2013, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 28.12.2010. 2. The Said Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Time Barred By Four Days. The Assessee Filed The Petition For Condonation Of Delay & Expressed The Reasons Of Delay. After Verification Of Petition We Found That There Was A Reasonable Cause For Four Days Delay In Filing The Appeal. Even Ld Dr Did Not Object To Condone The Delay. Therefore, We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal For Hearing. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Company Filed Its Return Of Income On 30.09.2008. Subsequently The 2 M/S Medi Drips Carries Pvt. Ltd. Assessee Company Filed Its Revised Return Of Income On 9-12-2008

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Rustogi, ACAFor Respondent: Shri Saurav Kumar, JCIT
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. Brief facts of the case qua the assessee are that the assessee company filed its return of income on 30.09.2008. Subsequently the 2 M/s Medi Drips Carries Pvt. Ltd. assessee company filed its revised return of income on 9-12-2008 showing total loss at Rs.3

MEDICARE TPA SERVICE (I) PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, KOL - 4, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1045/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi] I.T.A. No. 1045/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Medicare Tpa Service (I) Pvt. Ltd………………………......…………………………………………Appellant 6B, Bishop Lefroy Road Ground Floor 10, 6B, Paul Mansion Bhowanipore Kolkata – 700 020 [Pan : Aadcm 1682 L] Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata -4..................................................…..…......Respondent Appearances By: Shri Subash Agarwal, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri A.K. Nayak, Cit D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 22Nd, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 10Th , 2019 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata - 4, (Ld. Pr. Cit) Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, (The ‘Act’), Dt. 27/02/2018, For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. At The Outset We Find That There Is A Delay Of 13 Days In Filing Of This Appeal. After Perusing The Petition For Condonation, We Are Convinced That The Assessee Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause From Filing The Appeal On Time. Hence The Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted. 3. The Assessee Is A Company & Is In The Business Of, Health Insurance Claim Processing Etc. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 30/09/2013, Declaring Income Of Rs.4,80,10,710/-. The Assessing Officer Completed Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act, Determining The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.5,37,81,250/- Under The Normal Provisions & At Rs.2,72,98,018/- As Book Profit U/S 115Jb Of The Act. The Ld. Pr. Cit, Issued A Showcause Notice Dt. 04/2/2017 Proposing Revision Of The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 04/12/2015, By Invoking His Powers U/S 263 Of The Act,On The Following Points:-

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 244ASection 263

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted. 3. The assessee is a company and is in the business of, health insurance claim processing etc. it filed its return of income on 30/09/2013, declaring income of Rs.4,80,10,710/-. The Assessing Officer completed assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act, determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.5

INDIAN EX-SERVICE LEAGUE(W.B.),KOLKATA vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 398/KOL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2018-19 Indian Ex-Services Ito (Exemption), Ward- League, (W.B.) 1(1), Kolkata. Cp/7/3, Block-Cp, Vs. Sector-V, Salt Lake City, Kolkata -700 091. Pan: Aaati 3629 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Amiya Kumar Sahu, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Biswanath Das, Acit Date Of Hearing : 07.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.11.2022 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee For A.Y. 2018-19 Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre Dated 17.09.2021 U/S 143(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “I. For That The Cit(A) Fails To Understand That The Tax Is Payable On Income Not On Gross Receipts Thus Disallowance Of Revenue Expenditures Pent Is Unlawful, Whimsical Based On Surmises & Thus Order Passed By The Cit(A) Confirming The Assessment Order Is Liable To Be Set Aside.

For Appellant: Shri Amiya Kumar Sahu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, ACIT
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 143(1)

v. For that the CIT(A) fails to understand that society is charitable one that has been decided by the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case being No.1078/Kol/2018 and totally exempted from tax liability by virtue of the CBDT Circular No. 7/2015 dated April,23,2015 therefore, order passed by the CIT(A) is liable to be set aside

DREAMLAND EDUCATION SOCIETY,HOOGHLY vs. ACIT, CIR-2, HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

In the result the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 489/KOL/2016[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Aug 2016AY 2005-2006

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A Nos. 489-495/Kol/2016 Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)
Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 148Section 148(1)Section 249(4)

delay in filing these appeals are accordingly condoned. 5. The assessee is running a school upto XII standard under ICSE Board. The assesse is a registered society having been registered under the West Bengal Societies Registration Act, 1961 bearing registration No.S/32405 of 1981-82. As already stated it is solely engaged in imparting education to pre-primary and primary section

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

47 days. In order to explain the delay, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay and also annexed an affidavit of Shri Rabin Tibriwala, Partner of M/s. Bharat Tirtha Rice Mill. The affidavit of the assessee reads as under:- 1 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Bharat Tirtha Rice Mill 2 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Bharat Tirtha Rice Mill

ZYDUS HEALTHCARE LTD,GANGTOK vs. ACIT, CIR. 3(2), GANGTOK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 139/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 139/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Zydus Healhcare Limited,……..................Appellant (Successor To Zydus Healthcare Sikkim), 4Th Floor, ‘D’ Wing, Zudus Corporate Park, Scheme No. 63, Survey No. 536, Khoraj (Gandhinagar), Nr. Vaishnodevi Circle, Ahmedabad, Gandhinagar, Gujrat-382481 [Pan: Aaacg1895Q] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Circle-3(2), Gangtok, Sikkim-737101 Appearances By: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, Ca & Sonal Pandey, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri G. Hukugha Sema, Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 20, 2023 O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 153Section 156Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

47,980/- Chapter-VIA Assessed Income Rs.112,66,71,699/- Assessed Income (R/o Rs.112,66,71,700 5. The order is passed as per the provisions of section 143(3)/263 read with section 144C of the I.T. Act, 1961. Copy of Draft Assessment Order is issued to the assessee. Tax payable as per calculation sheet. 6. Penalty proceeding

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6,, KOLKATA vs. LOKNATH SARAF SECURITIES LTD.,, KOLKATA

In the result, to sum up ITA No

ITA 852/KOL/2008[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jul 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 43(5)Section 73

47,120/- was declared by the assessee. According to the Assessing Officer, various transactions entered into by the assessee in shares were either in the nature of speculative or non- speculative transactions and accordingly he proceeded to examine separately the nature of all such transactions which had given rise to income/loss to the assessee. On such examination

GOPMAHAL SAMABAY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LTD.,MEDINIPUR vs. ACIT, CIR. 38, MIDNAPORE

ITA 76/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40A(7)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication on merit. 3. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: I. I.T.A. No.76/KOL/2024; AY 2015-16 “1. That the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi was not justified in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer denying the deduction

GOPMAHAL SAMABAY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LTD.,PASCHIM MEDINIPUR vs. ACIT, CIR. 38, MIDNAPUR

ITA 77/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40A(7)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication on merit. 3. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: I. I.T.A. No.76/KOL/2024; AY 2015-16 “1. That the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi was not justified in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer denying the deduction

DCIT, CIR-7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. GANESH REALTY & MALL DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

ITA 581/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.581/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Singh, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri D.S. Damle, AR
Section 120(4)Section 131Section 143(3)Section 24Section 68

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. M/s. Ganesh Realty & Mall Development Pvt. Ltd Assessment Year: 2012-13 3. The grievances raised by the Revenueare as follows: “1. “Whether on the facts and circumstances of this case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in quashing the complete assessment passed by the Addl

PRITPAL SINGH BASAN,JHARKHAND vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( APPEAL), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 957/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 250Section 6(6)

section 154 of the Act but has not been decided, we are satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient and reasonable cause from filing the instant appeal within the statutory time limit. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit both the appeals for adjudication on merits. Page 4 of 11 I.T.A. Nos.: 957 & 1003/KOL/2024 Assessment Years

PRITPAL SINGH BASAN,JAMSHEDPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - APPEALS, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1003/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 250Section 6(6)

section 154 of the Act but has not been decided, we are satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient and reasonable cause from filing the instant appeal within the statutory time limit. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit both the appeals for adjudication on merits. Page 4 of 11 I.T.A. Nos.: 957 & 1003/KOL/2024 Assessment Years

DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. COAL INDIA LIMITED , KOLKATA

ITA 623/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2026AY 2012-13
Section 115JSection 250

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 1.3 Since the issues are common, all the eight appeals were heard together and are being decided vide this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 466/KOL/2018: “1) That on the facts and circumstances

ACIT, CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. MCNALLY BHARAT ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED, KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1369/KOL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.1369/Kol/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Acit, Circle-1(1), Kolkata Vs. M/S. Mcnally Bharat Engineering Co. Ltd. 4, Mangoe Lane, 7Th Floor, Kolkata. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcm9443R (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Radhey Shyam, CITFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Gupta, AR
Section 115JSection 143(3)

condone the impugned delay and proceed to adjudicate the Revenue’s instant appeal on merits. 3. The Revenue’s first substantive ground seeks to reverse the CIT(A)’s action deleting retention money addition of Rs.71,46,55,726/- made by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A)’s detailed discussion to this effect reads as under: “5. Ground of Appeal

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

2) wherein the TPO had inter alia examined the profitability of the Centply Unit. Upon verification of the inter-unit transactions conducted by the assessee, covered by Section 80IA(8) & (10) of the Act, the TPO did not find the profitability of the Unit to be excessive and accordingly no adjustment was proposed in the transfer pricing order passed

DEB PRASANNA CHOUDHURY,KOLKATA vs. ADIT/DCIT (IT) - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 2199/KOL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Nov 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. The Ld. CIT(Appeal)-22, Kolkata has erred in law and in facts in confirming the Assessment Order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer assessing the Total Income at Rs. 1,00,28,740/- only

SHUVRO CHATTARAJ,KOLKATA vs. PCIT , BURDWAN

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

ITA 226/KOL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Jain, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Datta, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54E

condoning the delay. The appellant further pray that the denial of appeal on this technical ground would cause irreparable damage and losses to the appellant. 12. That the above information and explanation are true and correct and the deponent adheres to them.” 3.1. The impugned order passed u/s. 263 of the Act is dated 29.05.2020 which is passed during

DCIT, CENTRAL -4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RAJESH AUTO MERCHANDISE PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2610/KOL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2026AY 2021-22
Section 131Section 132Section 153ASection 68

condone the delay and adjudicate the appeal in the ensuing paras.\nThe issue raised in ground no.1 is against the order of Id. CIT (A)\ndeleting the addition of ₹7,57,50,000/- as made by the Id. AO in\nrespect of unsecured loans by treating the same as unexplained cash\ncredit u/s 68 of the Act.\n3.1. The facts

TARAKESWAR VIVEKANANDA PALLY SEVA KENDRA,HOOGHLY vs. ITO, WARD-24(3), HOOGHLY, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1819/KOL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am] Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri M.C.Gope, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sk. Zafarul Haque Tanweer, JCIT/Addl.CIT
Section 12ASection 143Section 145(3)

2,61,096/- (approx). The assessing officer treated the entire sum of Rs. 5,47,525/- as gross receipt and thereby calculated the income of the' assessee for the Financial Year 2009-10 at Rs. 4,01,324/- . 7. The Seva Pharmacy run by the assessee, was the subject of theft on the night of 14/15th March, 2010. The assessee