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.

27 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 234Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai184Bangalore122Delhi80Ahmedabad73Chennai55Hyderabad52Chandigarh42Jaipur40Pune39Kolkata27Rajkot24Karnataka21Nagpur17Indore13Patna9Surat8Raipur7Lucknow6Agra5Cochin4Allahabad4Visakhapatnam2Jabalpur2Jodhpur2Panaji1Guwahati1

Key Topics

Section 115J26Section 143(1)20Section 143(3)19Section 234C18Section 132(4)18Section 15417Section 153A15Addition to Income15Section 250

ISDEC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MILKHIRAM MARKET, SAKCHI, JAMSHEDPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE

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

ITA 730/KOL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jul 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(1)Section 234CSection 250

condonation of delay along with supporting documents 6. Ground 6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on the mere technical ground of delay in filing, without appreciating the well-settled principle that no lax can be collected without the authority of law The rejection

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 27 · Page 1 of 2

14
Disallowance11
Deduction8
TDS6
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

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

234C. 6. That the appellant craves leave to submit additional evidence as per Rule 46A, either before or at the time of hearing of this appeal. 7 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, on disposal of this appeal, material adjustments would be required in computing total income, and tax (including interest, if any, payable

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

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

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

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

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

THE EXECUTOR TO THE ESTATE OF SUKHENDU PRASAD CHOUDHURY,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 29, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1278/KOL/2024[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Sept 2024AY 2022-2023

Bench: Sri Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 143(1)

delay is hereby condoned in the interest of substantive justice. 2. In this case, the Assessing Officer, CPC (hereinafter referred to as ld. 'AO') is seen to have issued an intimation order dated 22.03.2023 u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the 'Act'), in which TDS claim of Rs. 71,583/- was not granted ostensibly because

BCDA MEMBERS BENEVOLENT TRUST,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), EXEMPTION, KOLKATA

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

ITA 787/KOL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.787/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Bcda Members Benevolent Trust ………. Appellant (Pan: Aabtb0860C) Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Kolkata ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Rip Das, Ar Appeared For Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 08.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 24.07.2024 Order Per Dr. Manish Borad: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year (In Short “Ay”) 2020-21 Is Directed Against The Order Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 07.03.2024 Arising Out Of The Rectification Order Passed U/S 154 Of The Act By Ao, Cpc Dated 26.04.2022. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Read As Under:

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 154Section 234ASection 234FSection 250

234C and Late Fee u/s 234F, totalling to Rs.39,21,275/- [Rs.1,25,967/- + Rs.31,49,175/- + Rs.6,36,133/- & Rs.10,000/-], and finally confirmed by the Ld. CIT (A) is unlawful and arbitrary and cannot be imposed separately. Hence, it is prayed that this arbitrary wrong demand of Interest and Late Fee be directed to be deleted [Relief claimed

S R B C & CO. LLP,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 236/KOL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 10(35)Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 234CSection 43B

condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate upon the matter. 3. Grounds raised by the assessee are reproduced as under: “General 1. erred in confirming the action of Ld. AO in computing total income of the Appellant at Rs. 41,55,30,701 as against income of Rs. 41,15,79,882 offered to tax by the Appellant in Revised

TATA METALIKS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WD-3(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 439/KOL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 234C

Delay condoned. Leave granted. Pending hearing and final disposal of the Civil appeal, Department is restrained from recovering penalty - and-interest which has accrued fill dale. It is made clear that as far as the outstanding interest demand as of date is concerned, it would be open to the Department to recover that amount in case Civil Appeal

DCIT, CIR-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S TATA METALIKS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 478/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Apr 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 234C

Delay condoned. Leave granted. Pending hearing and final disposal of the Civil appeal, Department is restrained from recovering penalty - and-interest which has accrued fill dale. It is made clear that as far as the outstanding interest demand as of date is concerned, it would be open to the Department to recover that amount in case Civil Appeal

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE)- 3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AUXINITE SUPPLIERS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and CO of the assessee is allowed

ITA 139/KOL/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Apr 2026AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Income Auxinite Suppliers Private Tax (Cc)-3(1) Limited 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhawan 44/2A Jain Tower, Hazra Road, Vs. Poorva, 110 Shantipally, Kolkata- Kolkata-700019, West Bengal 700017, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecb3974H Co No. 11/Kol/2025 (Arising In Ita No. 139/Kol/2025 For A.Y. 2019-20) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Auxinite Suppliers Private Tax (Cc)-3(1) Limited 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhawan 44/2A Jain Tower, Hazra Road, Vs. Poorva, 110 Shantipally, Kolkata- Kolkata-700019, West Bengal 700017, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : S/Shri Rajeeva Kumar & Giridhar Dhelia, Ars Revenue By : Shri V. Vidhyadhar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 02.04.2026

For Appellant: S/Shri Rajeeva Kumar &For Respondent: Shri V. Vidhyadhar, DR
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 68

condone the delay and adjudicate the appeal in the ensuing paras. 3. The Revenue has challenged the order of ld. CIT (A) deleting the addition in respect of sale of shares to the tune of ₹4,68,45,000/- as made by the ld. AO u/s 68 of the Act of ₹5,63,50,000/- in respect of sale

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

234C which is in the record.” 2.1. As a mistake is apparent from the record, the order u/s 251/154/154/251/143(3) of the Act, dt. 30/04/2008, is rectified as under:- This order u/s 154/251/154/154/251/143(3) of the Act, was passed after the Assessing Officer after giving a showcause notice u/s 154 of the Act to the assessee, on 10/06/2008. A copy

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

234C which is in the record.” 2.1. As a mistake is apparent from the record, the order u/s 251/154/154/251/143(3) of the Act, dt. 30/04/2008, is rectified as under:- This order u/s 154/251/154/154/251/143(3) of the Act, was passed after the Assessing Officer after giving a showcause notice u/s 154 of the Act to the assessee, on 10/06/2008. A copy

AVR STORAGE TANK TERMINALS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1350/KOL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Dec 2024AY 2020-2021

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

For Appellant: Shri Dipran Mukherjee, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 244ASection 250Section 32

234C of the Act. 9. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the NFAC erred in not directing the Assessing Officer to allow interest as per section 244A of the Act for the subject year till the date of issue of refund after giving effect to the above grounds. 10. That the appellant craves leave