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.

50 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 234Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai252Delhi203Bangalore177Ahmedabad97Hyderabad71Chennai70Jaipur66Kolkata50Chandigarh48Pune45Nagpur21Karnataka21Rajkot20Indore19Patna16Lucknow15Surat11Raipur10Visakhapatnam7Allahabad7Jodhpur7Agra6Cochin6Jabalpur6Amritsar2Cuttack2SC1Panaji1Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 26342Addition to Income39Section 143(3)30Section 6829Section 25024Limitation/Time-bar23Section 115J20Section 234B19Section 143(1)

DCIT, CIRCLE -6 KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 983/KOL/2012[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Aug 2016AY 2008-2009

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

For Appellant: Shri Hari Shankar Lal, CITFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Bhattacharya, FCA
Section 115JSection 143(3)

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 2 ITA Nos. 674-982-983/Kol/2012 National Insurance Co. Ltd., AYs 2005-06,2007-08 &2008-09 ITA No. 674/Kol/2012 – Asst Year 2005-06 3. The first issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld CITA is justified in deleting the addition made on account

DCIT, CIRCLE -6 KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Showing 1–20 of 50 · Page 1 of 3

19
Section 14818
Disallowance18
Condonation of Delay14
ITA 674/KOL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Aug 2016AY 2005-06

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

For Appellant: Shri Hari Shankar Lal, CITFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Bhattacharya, FCA
Section 115JSection 143(3)

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 2 ITA Nos. 674-982-983/Kol/2012 National Insurance Co. Ltd., AYs 2005-06,2007-08 &2008-09 ITA No. 674/Kol/2012 – Asst Year 2005-06 3. The first issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld CITA is justified in deleting the addition made on account

DCIT, CIRCLE -6 KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 982/KOL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Aug 2016AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Shri Hari Shankar Lal, CITFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Bhattacharya, FCA
Section 115JSection 143(3)

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 2 ITA Nos. 674-982-983/Kol/2012 National Insurance Co. Ltd., AYs 2005-06,2007-08 &2008-09 ITA No. 674/Kol/2012 – Asst Year 2005-06 3. The first issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld CITA is justified in deleting the addition made on account

LUDLOW JUTE COMPANY LIMITED PROVIDENT FUND,KOLKATA vs. A.D.I.T., CPC, BENGALURU, BENGALURU

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

ITA 2434/KOL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Aug 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 10(25)Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 234CSection 250

234B. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, on the disposal of the appeal there will be reduction and/or deletion of interest u/s 234C of Rs. 9,01,470/-, hence necessary direction may please be given to the A.O. to modify the computation of interest u/s 234C. 6. That the appellant craves leave to submit

SHRI NITYANAND PANDEY,HOOGHLY vs. I.T.O., WARD - 23(1),, HOOGHLY

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

ITA 2067/KOL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Sept 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250

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. For that on the facts of the case, the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) on 22.04.2024 which is completely arbitrary, unjustified and illegal. I.T.A. No.: 2067/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Nityanand Pandey

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

SHREE CAPITAL SERVICES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 5(1),, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1152/KOL/2025[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Oct 2025AY 2023-2024

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 234BSection 250Section 253(3)

section (4), if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. 4.0 Further, it is humbly submitted that the provision limiting the time for filing the appeal may please be liberally interpreted so that the appropriate action to pursue remedy is allowed to the appellant by the law and is not deprived

ROMEX DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD-4(1), KOLKATA

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

ITA 1988/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 1988/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Romex Developers Pvt. Limited,…..…………Appellant 23, Strand Road, Kolkata-700001 [Pan:Aafcr0812D] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………….…………...Respondent Ward-4(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Soumitra Chaudhury, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Somnath Das Biswas, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: March 20, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: May 29, 2025 O R D E R

Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 234BSection 69A

condone the delay of 213 days. 2 Romex Developers Pvt. Limited 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ITAT and raised the following issues:- (1) For that on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Ld. C.I.T.(A) on 27.08.2024 is completely arbitrary, unjustified and illegal. (2) For that

KIRTI AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. CPC TAX OFFICER WARD OFFICER 40(1), KOLKATA

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

ITA 24/KOL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Aug 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.24/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22

Section 143(1)Section 199Section 205Section 250

Sections 234B and 234C of the Income tax Act.” 3. The grievance of the assessee is two-fold, firstly, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay

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

234B deserves to be reduced and/or deleted. 3. For that the appellant craves leave to submit additional grounds and/or amend or alter the grounds already taken either at the time of hearing of the appeal or before.” 3. At the outset, it is noticed that there is a delay of 4 days. The assessee has filed the petition dated

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

condoned the delay. The one more factor, which was available before the Tribunal was that impugned order was open for debate and it is just a Cross Objection filed by the assessee. The rights in the hands of the appellant have not been crystallized. Therefore, the Tribunal made an elaborate discussion and held that such an order be termed

SILIGURI HEIGHTS PVT LTD,SILIGURI vs. ITO, WARD-1(3),, SILIGURI

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

ITA 157/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

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. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee when the impugned proceedings were without jurisdiction, illegal and void

NEETU AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD 7(1), KOLKATA

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

ITA 67/KOL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Puja Agarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Abhishek Kumar, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234BSection 250Section 90

condoned, without providing any reasons. 4. Concluding that there is no "sufficient cause” for delay, without appreciating the facts and circumstances. 5. Not appreciating that the delay in filing of appeal was not deliberate, malafide or intentional, but due to a bonafide belief and reasonable cause. 6. Not appreciating that the Appellant would be put to undue injustice

M/S. CLIFF TREXIM PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2520/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. T Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2519/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Garg Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaacg 9775 F (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2520/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Cliff Treximpvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aabcc 0961 E (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2521/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Span Foundation Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- Ltd. 3(2), Kolkata Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, 57, Burtolla Street, Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. Kolkata – 700 007. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaecs 4605 C (Assessee) .. (Revenue)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Bhoomija Verma, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)
Section 263

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 4. These three appeals filed by the different assessee’s emanate from a common search conducted at their premises, involves common and identical issues, therefore, appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, since facts remain similar and the grounds

M/S. SPAN FOUNDATION PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2521/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. T Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2519/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Garg Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaacg 9775 F (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2520/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Cliff Treximpvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aabcc 0961 E (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2521/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Span Foundation Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- Ltd. 3(2), Kolkata Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, 57, Burtolla Street, Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. Kolkata – 700 007. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaecs 4605 C (Assessee) .. (Revenue)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Bhoomija Verma, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)
Section 263

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 4. These three appeals filed by the different assessee’s emanate from a common search conducted at their premises, involves common and identical issues, therefore, appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, since facts remain similar and the grounds

M/S. GARG BROTHERS PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2519/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. T Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2519/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Garg Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaacg 9775 F (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2520/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Cliff Treximpvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aabcc 0961 E (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2521/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Span Foundation Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- Ltd. 3(2), Kolkata Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, 57, Burtolla Street, Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. Kolkata – 700 007. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaecs 4605 C (Assessee) .. (Revenue)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Bhoomija Verma, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)
Section 263

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 4. These three appeals filed by the different assessee’s emanate from a common search conducted at their premises, involves common and identical issues, therefore, appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, since facts remain similar and the grounds

MELCON(VIZAG) PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-4(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 234/KOL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Feb 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Sri Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234Section 234BSection 234D

section 234B is otherwise illegal and or void ab-initio: Prayer and Relief Claimed: 3. That Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘Tribunal’ in brief)may be pleased to delete or directing the authorities below so to do the entire addition of Rs 6,61,299/-erroneously and or illegally made by Ld Assessing Officer and similarly upheld/ sustained

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. PHPL PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

ITA 1714/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 132(1)Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 139Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250Section 3Section 68

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2. The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law by allowing the appeal of the assessee by deleting the addition of Rs. 1,23,50,000/- made by the AO under section

DAMODAR VALLEY CORPORATION,KOLKATA vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE - 9, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Accordingly, the ground nos. 8 & 9 in ITA No. 451/Kol/2013 raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1622/KOL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jan 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: : Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganeshita No. 1622/Kol/2011 A.Y 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri D.S Damle, FCA, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Subhra Biswas, CIT, ld
Section 115JSection 143(3)

condone the delay and hence the interest u/s 234C of the Act is chargeable in the instant case. ITA Nos. 1622/Kol/2011 & M/s. Damodar Valley Corporation 35 451/Kol/2013-A-AM 5.3. We have heard the rival submissions and find that the assessee had paid the first installment of advance tax on 16.6.2008 (Monday) as the last date of paying advance

PYARELAL SHAW,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-25(1), KOLKATA

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

ITA 2687/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 69A

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. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Hon'ble C.I.T.(A) dated 08.02.2024 is completely arbitrary, unjustified and illegal. 2. For that on the facts