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.

827 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 250(4)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,281Kolkata827Chennai744Delhi594Pune563Bangalore491Ahmedabad398Jaipur329Patna319Amritsar236Hyderabad225Raipur221Surat217Indore201Nagpur179Rajkot170Panaji147Chandigarh126Cochin119Lucknow106Karnataka103Visakhapatnam96Guwahati85Agra67Calcutta39Jabalpur38Cuttack37Allahabad28Jodhpur23Varanasi16Dehradun14Ranchi11SC4Himachal Pradesh1Andhra Pradesh1Telangana1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 250297Section 143(3)43Addition to Income41Limitation/Time-bar40Section 143(1)37Condonation of Delay37Section 14733Section 6823Section 148

I.T.O.,WARD-1(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S PCM STRESCON OVERSEAS VENTURE LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both appeal preferred by the revenue (ITA No

ITA 2652/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap & Shri A. T. Varkey]

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 153Section 263

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. ITA No.2652/Kol/2019 & CO No. 15/Kol/2020 PCM Strescon Overseas Ventures Ltd., AY 2012-13 2. At the outset, the Ld. A.R. for the assessee Shri Akkal Dudhwewala submitted that ITA No. 2652/Kol/2019 is preferred by the Revenue against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) for AY 2012-13 dated 24.07.2019, wherein

M/S PCM STRESCON OVERSEAS VENTURE LTD.,SILIGURI vs. PCIT-1, , KOLKATA

In the result, both appeal preferred by the revenue (ITA No

Showing 1–20 of 827 · Page 1 of 42

...
19
Section 14416
Section 15414
Disallowance12
ITA 112/KOL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap & Shri A. T. Varkey]

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 153Section 263

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. ITA No.2652/Kol/2019 & CO No. 15/Kol/2020 PCM Strescon Overseas Ventures Ltd., AY 2012-13 2. At the outset, the Ld. A.R. for the assessee Shri Akkal Dudhwewala submitted that ITA No. 2652/Kol/2019 is preferred by the Revenue against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) for AY 2012-13 dated 24.07.2019, wherein

AMALENDU KUMAR MODAK,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , 50(1), KOLKATA

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

ITA 1367/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18 Amalendu Kumar Modak, Income Tax Officer, 50(1), Karer Ganga, Laha Bagan, Garia, Income Tax Office, Civil Centre, Vs Garia Main Road, Kolkata-700084, Uttarapan Complex, West Bengal Manicktala, Kolkata-700 067, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aekpm9399G Present For: Appellant By : Shri Indranil Banerjee, Ar Respondent By : Shri Pradip Kumar Biswas, Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.11.2024 O R D E R Per Rakesh Mishra: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld. Cit (A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For Ay 2017-18 Dated 14.11.2024, Which Has Been Passed Against The Assessment Order U/S 147 Read With Section 144 Read With Section 144B Of The Act, Dated 29.05.2023. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Indranil Banerjee, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pradip Kumar Biswas, DR
Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 149(1)(a)Section 151Section 151ASection 250

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for AY 2017-18 dated 14.11.2024, which has been passed against the assessment order u/s 147 read with section 144 read with section 144B of the Act, dated 29.05.2023. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are reproduced as under: “A. Grounds concerning dismissal

INCOME TAX OFFICER, ESPLANADE AAYAKAR BHAVAN vs. ALERT CONSULTANTS AND CREDIT PVT LTD, R N MUKHERJEE ROAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1085/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 250

4 Alert Consultants & Credit Pvt.Ltd. AY 2012-13 book, which is a copy of the order sheet of the assessment records, the contents of which, for the sake of ready reference are reproduced as under: 20.07.2023 Seen order u/s. 250 of the I.T. Act,1961 dated ITO, 30.03.2023 of Ld. CIT(Appeals), NFAC, Delhi

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”), passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, vide order dated 13.03.2025. 1.1 This case has a unique set of facts which deserve to be recapitulated for appreciating the action of Ld. CIT(A), who is seen to have dismissed the appeal before

JYOTI RANJAN ROY REPRESENTED BY LIMITED GUARDIAN SUVAJIT ROY ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 50, KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 963/KOL/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 May 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.963/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Jyoti Ranjan Roy Represented By Limited Guardian Suvajit Roy.............................……….……Appellant Block Ac-155, Sector-1, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700064. [Pan:Adlpr2179P] Vs. Acit, Circle-50, Kolkata.............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent I.T.A. No.314/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Jyoti Ranjan Roy ……………………………..............................……….……Appellant Block Ac-155, Sector-1, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700064. [Pan: Adlpr2179P] Vs. Acit, Circle-50, Kolkata.............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent I.T.A. No.261/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Jyoti Ranjan Roy ……………………………..............................……….……Appellant Block Ac-155, Sector-1, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700064. [Pan: Adlpr2179P] Vs. Dcit, Circle-49(1), Kolkata.............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent

Section 250Section 253(3)Section 68

condonation of delay in filing the appeal againstthe order dated December 31, 2009, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "the Act") before this Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata Bench (hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal"). 2. Your petitioner states that the said order dated December 31, 2009 was received

JYOTI RANJAN ROY(LIMITED GUAREDIAN -SUVAJIT ROY),KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 49(1), KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 261/KOL/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 May 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.963/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Jyoti Ranjan Roy Represented By Limited Guardian Suvajit Roy.............................……….……Appellant Block Ac-155, Sector-1, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700064. [Pan:Adlpr2179P] Vs. Acit, Circle-50, Kolkata.............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent I.T.A. No.314/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Jyoti Ranjan Roy ……………………………..............................……….……Appellant Block Ac-155, Sector-1, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700064. [Pan: Adlpr2179P] Vs. Acit, Circle-50, Kolkata.............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent I.T.A. No.261/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Jyoti Ranjan Roy ……………………………..............................……….……Appellant Block Ac-155, Sector-1, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700064. [Pan: Adlpr2179P] Vs. Dcit, Circle-49(1), Kolkata.............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent

Section 250Section 253(3)Section 68

condonation of delay in filing the appeal againstthe order dated December 31, 2009, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "the Act") before this Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata Bench (hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal"). 2. Your petitioner states that the said order dated December 31, 2009 was received

DCIT, CIRCLE-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. SIMPLEX INFRASTRUCTURES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Ground No. 1 of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 141/KOL/2015[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Oct 2017AY 2006-2007

Bench: Sri N.V. Vasudevan & Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy]

Section 250Section 80Section 80ISection 91

condone the delay and admit these appeal. 4. Facts in brief:- The assessee is a company and is engaged in the business of Ground Engineering, Civil & Structural works, building of power plants, construction of roads and highways etc. and trading in goods. For the Assessment Year 2005- 06, the assessee filed its return of income on 30/10/2005, declaring ‘Nil’ income

DCIT, CIRCLE-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. SIMPLEX INFRASTRUCTURES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Ground No. 1 of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 140/KOL/2015[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Oct 2017AY 2005-2006

Bench: Sri N.V. Vasudevan & Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy]

Section 250Section 80Section 80ISection 91

condone the delay and admit these appeal. 4. Facts in brief:- The assessee is a company and is engaged in the business of Ground Engineering, Civil & Structural works, building of power plants, construction of roads and highways etc. and trading in goods. For the Assessment Year 2005- 06, the assessee filed its return of income on 30/10/2005, declaring ‘Nil’ income

SWARUP KUMAR SAHA ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 50(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

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

ITA 366/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Swarup Kumar Saha…............…..…….……………………..…………………………………..……….……..Appellant 40C/1, Jessore Road Barasat Kolkata – 700 124 [Pan : Algps 1418 K] Income Tax Officer, Ward 50(2), Kolkata.………………………………...……...…………….......Respondent Appearances By: Shri K.M. Roy, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Provash Roy, Jcit, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 28Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 20Th , 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

Section 154Section 250Section 5

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’), relating to Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. We find that the ld. CIT(A), in this case dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that the delay of 540 days in filing of the appeal is not explained. The assessee submitted that he was not properly advised

SUDHA DHOOT,KOLKATA vs. AO WARD 40 (4), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 127/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Ram Avtar Dhoot, CAFor Respondent: Smt Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT, DR
Section 143(1)Section 21Section 250

250 of the Act in filing of Form No. 36. However, the same is addressed to the ITO, Ward-40(4)3 Gov. Kolkata and is reproduced as under: 2 Sudha Dhoot, AY: 2018-19 2.1. It was observed during the course of the appeal that the appeal suffers from several defects so much so that even the Power

M/S. JEEVANDARSHI MARKETING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 6(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 509/KOL/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Nov 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 509/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2019-2020 M/S. Jeevandarshi Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(2), Kolkata 4Th Floor Vs 9, India Exchange Place Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aaacj8585A] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, A/R Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24/11/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/11/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 23/08/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act’), For Assessment Year 2019-2020. 2. The Sole Issue Raised By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Order Of The Assessing Officer Wherein The Assessing Officer Had Disallowed The Carry Forward Of Business Loss Of Rs.72,96,597/- On The Ground That The Return Was Filed On 01/11/2019 Whereas The Due Date Of Filing Was On 31/10/2019. 3. Facts In Brief Are That The Assessee Filed The Return Of Income On 01/11/2019 Declaring Total Loss At Rs.72,96,596/-. The Same Was Processed By The Central Processing Centre (Cpc), Bengaluru U/S 143(1) Of The Act Vide Intimation Dt. 30/04/2020, Wherein The Claim Of The Assessee Of Carry Forward Of Loss To Subsequent Year Was Rejected On The Ground That The Return Was Filed On 01/11/2019. 4. Aggrieved The Assesse Carried The Matter In Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A). The Ld. Cit(A) Simply Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee By

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, A/RFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT, D/R
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80I

250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by the Learned Commissioner of Income- Tax (Appeals) IX, New Delhi is against law and facts on the file in as much as she was not justified to hold that the benefit of Section 80-IC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 shall not be available as the requirements of Section

DILIP KUMAR PRAMANIK,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 25(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1581/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 250Section 272Section 273B

condonation of delay of 169 days which is as under: “1. The appellant herein has filed appeal before this Hon'ble Tribunal against order under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") dated 21st November, 2024 which appeal was filed by the appellant against the original order under Section 147 read with Section

DILIP KUMAR PRAMANIK,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 25(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1579/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 250Section 272Section 273B

condonation of delay of 169 days which is as under: “1. The appellant herein has filed appeal before this Hon'ble Tribunal against order under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") dated 21st November, 2024 which appeal was filed by the appellant against the original order under Section 147 read with Section

DILIP KUMAR PRAMANIK,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 25(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1580/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 250Section 272Section 273B

condonation of delay of 169 days which is as under: “1. The appellant herein has filed appeal before this Hon'ble Tribunal against order under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") dated 21st November, 2024 which appeal was filed by the appellant against the original order under Section 147 read with Section

M/S B.N. DUTTA,JAMSHEDPUR vs. DCIT, CIR. 2, DURGAPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 705/KOL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.705/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S B. N. Dutta ….…………………………………………………..………….……Appellant Head Office: 518, G Road, Sonari West Layout, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand – 831011. [Pan: Aadfb0648J] Vs. Dcit, Circle-2, Durgapur……..……....….….. ……………….........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri D. Khasnobis, Ca & None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri H. Robindro Singh, Addl. Cit - Dr & None Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 05, 2025 & December 17, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 17, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 13.02.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Indore [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Partnership Firm & Engaged In The Business Of Civil Construction & Maintenance Of Civil Structures Inside Stell Plants. For The Assessment Year 2011-12, The Assessee Filed Its Return On 30.09.2011 By Declaring Total Income Of Rs.36,58,080/- & Total Tax & Cess Liability Of Rs.11,30,347/- Was Discharged In Full Resulting In A Refund Of Rs.12,520/-. The Return Of The Assessee Was Processed By The Cpc U/S 143(1) Of The Act On 27.01.2012. The Assessee Did Not Receive Any Information From The Cpc Either Directly By Way Of Service Of Physical Copy Of The Same Or From The Then Authorised Representative Namely Mr. S. N. Gupta. Due To Non-Receipt Of

Section 143(1)Section 249(3)Section 250

250(6) of the Act which is reproduced as under for the sake of ready reference: 6)The order of the [* * *] [ Omitted by Act 21 of 1998, Section 65 (w.e.f. 1.10.1998).] [Commissioner (Appeals)] [ Inserted by Act 29 of 1977, Section 39 and Schedule V (w.e.f. 10.7.1978).] disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points

BLUEBELL TRADECOM LLP (SUCCESSOR OF BLUEBELL TRADECOM PVT. LTD.),KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD-1(1) NOW I.T.O., WARD-5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 500/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jul 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: the Honorable ITAT and accordingly the appeal was prepared.

Section 271(1)(c)Section 5

section 5 is proved, the application must not be thrown out or any delay cannot be refused to be condoned. (successor of Bluebell Tradecom Pvt. Ltd.) (h) In O.P. Kathpalia v. Lakhmir Singh AIR 1984 SC 1744, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if the refusal to condone the delay results in grave miscarriage of justice; it would

BLUEBELL TRADECOM LLP (SUCCESSOR OF BLUEBELL TRADECOM PVT. LTD.),KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-2(4), KOLKATA CURRENTLY ITO, WARD-5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 499/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jul 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: the Honorable ITAT and accordingly the appeal was prepared.

Section 271(1)(c)Section 5

section 5 is proved, the application must not be thrown out or any delay cannot be refused to be condoned. (successor of Bluebell Tradecom Pvt. Ltd.) (h) In O.P. Kathpalia v. Lakhmir Singh AIR 1984 SC 1744, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if the refusal to condone the delay results in grave miscarriage of justice; it would

BHARATI RANI SAHA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD-61(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 422/KOL/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Dec 2022AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. 5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account

BHARATI RANI SAHA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 61(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 423/KOL/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Dec 2022AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. 5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account