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.

11 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 32Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi15Kolkata11Mumbai6Pune4Bangalore3Lucknow3Chennai1

Key Topics

Section 80I13Section 115J12Section 25011Addition to Income7Section 143(1)6Section 143(3)6Condonation of Delay6Deduction6Depreciation4Limitation/Time-bar4Section 733Section 1543

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

32A(3) it has specifically mentioned the items to be considered for computing total income. Explanation.-Where for any assessment year, investment allowance is to be allowed in accordance with the provisions of this sub-section in respect of any ship or aircraft acquired or any machinery or plant installed in more than one previous year, and the total income

DCIT, CIR. 4(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S AMALGAMATED PLANTATIONS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 451/KOL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Feb 2025
AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm M/S Amalgamated Plantations Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Circle 4(1) Unit No.302A, 3Rd Floor, Elgin 8Th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Aaykarbhavan, Kolkata Chambers, Ashutosh Vs. West Bengal-700069 Mukherjee Road, 1A, Kolkata-700020, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aagca6995B Assessee By : Shri Pratushjhunjhunwala, Ar Revenue By : Shri Amuldeep Kaur, Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.02.2025

For Appellant: Shri PratushJhunjhunwala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Amuldeep Kaur, DR
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 80I

delay and accordingly, we condone the same by admitting the appeal for adjudication. 03. The only issue raised by the assessee is against the order of ld. CIT (A) allowing the claim of the assessee u/s 80IE of the Act of ₹5,82,61,479/-. 04. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income dated

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

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 by the Ld. Addl/Jt. CIT(A), there was justified reason for setting aside the order and restore the appeal to the Ld. Addl/Jt. CIT(A) on this ground alone since the merits of the case have not been discussed. However, since the facts can be ascertained from the record and setting aside the order would cause further inconvenience

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S INDIAN OIL PETRONAS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

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

ITA 1884/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Apr 2021AY 2013-14

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

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

section 32A of the Act. It was inter alia observed as under: " ... There is no dispute that the plant in respect of which the assessee claimed deduction was owned by it and WDS installed after 31-3-1976, in the assessee's industrial undertaking for excavating, mining and processing mineral ore Mineral ore is not excluded by the Eleventh Schedule

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

section 32A of the Act. It was inter alia observed as under: " ... There is no dispute that the plant in respect of which the assessee claimed deduction was owned by it and WDS installed after 31-3-1976, in the assessee's industrial undertaking for excavating, mining and processing mineral ore Mineral ore is not excluded by the Eleventh Schedule

STESALIT LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 747/KOL/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Mar 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Jayant Raheja, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R
Section 250Section 32A

condone the delay and proceed to admit the appeals for hearing. 3. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that in view of the order of the Learned National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata (hereinafter “the ld. NCLT”) dt. 20/07/2018, all the tax liabilities raised against the assessee for the impugned Assessment Years have ceased to exist

STESALIT LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 748/KOL/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Mar 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Jayant Raheja, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R
Section 250Section 32A

condone the delay and proceed to admit the appeals for hearing. 3. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that in view of the order of the Learned National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata (hereinafter “the ld. NCLT”) dt. 20/07/2018, all the tax liabilities raised against the assessee for the impugned Assessment Years have ceased to exist

STESALIT LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 749/KOL/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Mar 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Jayant Raheja, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R
Section 250Section 32A

condone the delay and proceed to admit the appeals for hearing. 3. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that in view of the order of the Learned National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata (hereinafter “the ld. NCLT”) dt. 20/07/2018, all the tax liabilities raised against the assessee for the impugned Assessment Years have ceased to exist

M/S. KALYAN EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,BUDBUD, BURDWAN (EAST) vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 2, DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 106/KOL/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 May 2023AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No. 106/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2020-2021 M/S. Kalyan Educational Society,..............Appellant Budbud Bye Pass (North), Distg. Bardhaman-713403 [Pan: Aabtk2860K] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Circle-2, Durgapur, Aayakar Bhawan, Durgapur, West Bengal Appearances By: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate, Smt. Puja Somani, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, Cit (Dr), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 250

32A, Chittaranjan Avenue, Kolkata-700012 and most of the original office records, files, documents and computer hard disks were burnt in the fire. Besides due to outbreak of the pandemic COVID-19 virus and severe disruption in the normal working conditions, it became very difficult for the assessee-society to consolidate the receipts and payments of these educational institutions, which

I.T.O WD - 8(2),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S CALCUTTA MEDICAL IMAGING INSTITUTE LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 2259/KOL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Oct 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Years:2005-06

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154

condoned and the hearing proceeded with. 3. First inter-connected issue raised by Revenue in this appeal is that Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance made by Assessing Officer for ₹32,38,637 on account of depreciation. For this, Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “That the CIT(A) has erred in law as well