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.

160 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 36(1)(iv)clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai344Delhi278Mumbai272Kolkata160Karnataka141Bangalore131Jaipur126Chandigarh97Ahmedabad92Hyderabad85Nagpur72Raipur65Indore61Pune56Amritsar54Surat45Calcutta38Panaji35Cuttack27Rajkot26Lucknow25SC22Varanasi14Cochin13Visakhapatnam12Patna11Telangana10Allahabad9Guwahati8Orissa5Rajasthan4Dehradun3Jodhpur1Andhra Pradesh1Himachal Pradesh1

Key Topics

Addition to Income72Limitation/Time-bar61Section 36(1)(va)57Disallowance45Section 26342Section 14A36Condonation of Delay34Section 43B33Deduction

M/S PREMIER IRRIGATION ADRITEC (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-11(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 387/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 2(24)Section 250Section 3Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

condoned. Ground No.1 & 2 – Vide Ground Nos.1 & 2, the assessee has 4. agitated the confirmation of addition of Rs.10,10,774/- made by the Assessing Officer invoking the provisions to section 43B of the Act for delay in depositing employees contribution to provident fund and employees state insurance. 5. Heard both the sides. At the outset, we note that

Showing 1–20 of 160 · Page 1 of 8

...
33
Section 25031
Section 143(3)28
Section 115J24

DCIT, CIR. 5(1), KOLKATA vs. KARAM CHAND THAPAR & BROS COAL SALES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for AY 2015-16 is partly allowed and appeal for AY 2016-17 is dismissed

ITA 321/KOL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. Nos. 320 & 321/Kol/2021 Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,........Appellant Circle-5(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 -Vs.- Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. Coal Sales Limited,........................Respondent 25, Brabourne Road, Kolkata-700001 [Pan;Aabck1281H] Appearances By: Shri G. Hukugha Sema, Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Shri N.S. Saini, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 02, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 28, 2023 O R D E R

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate upon the matters. 3. Grounds of appeal taken by the Revenue are reproduced as under:- Assessment Year: 2015-2016 (1) That on the facts and circumstances of the Case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the Transfer Pricing adjustment of INR 7,53,60,879 (later on rectified

DCIT, CIR. 5(1), KOLKATA vs. KARAM CHAND THAPAR & BROS COAL SALES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for AY 2015-16 is partly allowed and appeal for AY 2016-17 is dismissed

ITA 320/KOL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. Nos. 320 & 321/Kol/2021 Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,........Appellant Circle-5(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 -Vs.- Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. Coal Sales Limited,........................Respondent 25, Brabourne Road, Kolkata-700001 [Pan;Aabck1281H] Appearances By: Shri G. Hukugha Sema, Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Shri N.S. Saini, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 02, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 28, 2023 O R D E R

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate upon the matters. 3. Grounds of appeal taken by the Revenue are reproduced as under:- Assessment Year: 2015-2016 (1) That on the facts and circumstances of the Case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the Transfer Pricing adjustment of INR 7,53,60,879 (later on rectified

KALIPADA SAHA,HOOGHLY vs. ITO, WARD 24(3), HOOGHLY

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1447/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg&Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 2Section 2(24)Section 2(24)(x)Section 3Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. At the outset, we note that the grounds of appeal relate to disallowance made u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act in respect of delay in deposit of Employees’ Contribution of Provident Fund and Employees State Insurance (PF & ESI) totaling to Rs.18,22,874/-. Since the issue raised

BRAINWARE CONSULTANCY PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 10, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 89/KOL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13 Brainware Consultancy Deputy Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Plot – Y8, Block- Vs Income Tax, Circle-10, Ep, Sector-V, Salt Lake, . Kolkata. Kolkata-700 091. (Pan: Aabcb0753D) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Dipankar Guha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT, DR
Section 154Section 2(24)Section 3Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

condone the delay of 1612 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and admit it for adjudication. 3. At the outset, we note that the grounds of appeal relate to disallowance made u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act in respect of delay in deposit 3 Brainware Consultancy Pvt. Ltd., AY 2012-13 of Employees’ Contribution of Provident Fund

NAVEEN MERICO ENGINEERING CO. PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT,CIR. 12(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 424/KOL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri Bibekananda Madhu, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

condoned the defaults done prior to 01.04.2021. 6. The appellant craves leave to add further grounds of appeal or alter the grounds at the time of hearing.” 5. Thus, all the grounds related to the confirmation of the addition of Rs.11,12,290/- on account of delayed payment of employees’ contribution of PF/ESI after the due date. The appeal

T & I GLOBAL LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 471/KOL/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 May 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 2Section 2(24)Section 2(24)(x)Section 3Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

condoned and appeal is admitted. 3. At the outset, we note that the ground of appeal relate to disallowance made u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act in respect of delay in deposit of Employees’ Contribution of Provident Fund and Employees State Insurance (PF & ESI) totaling to Rs.32,82,761/-. The issue relating to ground taken by the assessee have

ACIT, CC-3(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. SNOWTEX INVESTMENT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1799/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.) Asstt. Year : 2012-13 A.C.I.T, Cc-3(2), Kolkata Vs M/S. Snowtex Investment Ltd. Pan: Aaecs 0334C (Assessee/Department) (Respondent/Assessee)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Sr. Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT, ld.DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 3. The grievances raised by the Revenue are as follows:- 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law to hold that disallowance under section 14A read with rule 8D will not apply where no exempt income is received

ACIT, CIRCLE -34, KOLKATA vs. SYAMA PRASAD MOOKERJEE PORT , KOLKATA

In the result, all the grounds filed by the Revenue in all the four years are hereby dismissed

ITA 1000/KOL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: proceeding for adjudicating this matter, it is noticed that the 4 appeals filed by the Department are barred by limitation, comprising of delay ranging from 119 days to 129 days. The application for said condonation of delay are almost identically worded. For the sake of convenience, the application for AY 2018-19 is extracted as under: “1. Order of CIT (A) was received in the office of the PCIT-5, Kolkata on 23.01.2024.

Section 148A

delay in filing appeal may kindly be condoned.” Considering the reasons given in the said application, these appeals are admitted for adjudication. 2. The appellant is a local authority engaged in providing port services for over a century. It is functioning under the direct control and supervision of the Ministry of Shipping under the Union Govt. In the 4 years

ACIT , CIRCLE -34, KOLKATA vs. SYAMA PRASAD MOOKERJEE PORT, KOLKATA

In the result, all the grounds filed by the Revenue in all the four years are hereby dismissed

ITA 981/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: proceeding for adjudicating this matter, it is noticed that the 4 appeals filed by the Department are barred by limitation, comprising of delay ranging from 119 days to 129 days. The application for said condonation of delay are almost identically worded. For the sake of convenience, the application for AY 2018-19 is extracted as under: “1. Order of CIT (A) was received in the office of the PCIT-5, Kolkata on 23.01.2024.

Section 148A

delay in filing appeal may kindly be condoned.” Considering the reasons given in the said application, these appeals are admitted for adjudication. 2. The appellant is a local authority engaged in providing port services for over a century. It is functioning under the direct control and supervision of the Ministry of Shipping under the Union Govt. In the 4 years

ACIT, CIRCLE-34, KOLKATA vs. SYAMA PRASAD MOOKERJEE PORT, KOLKATA

In the result, all the grounds filed by the Revenue in all the four years are hereby dismissed

ITA 999/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: proceeding for adjudicating this matter, it is noticed that the 4 appeals filed by the Department are barred by limitation, comprising of delay ranging from 119 days to 129 days. The application for said condonation of delay are almost identically worded. For the sake of convenience, the application for AY 2018-19 is extracted as under: “1. Order of CIT (A) was received in the office of the PCIT-5, Kolkata on 23.01.2024.

Section 148A

delay in filing appeal may kindly be condoned.” Considering the reasons given in the said application, these appeals are admitted for adjudication. 2. The appellant is a local authority engaged in providing port services for over a century. It is functioning under the direct control and supervision of the Ministry of Shipping under the Union Govt. In the 4 years

ACIT, CIRCLE-34, KOLKATA vs. SYAMA PRASAD MOOKERJEE PORT, KOLKATA

In the result, all the grounds filed by the Revenue in all the four years are hereby dismissed

ITA 1001/KOL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: proceeding for adjudicating this matter, it is noticed that the 4 appeals filed by the Department are barred by limitation, comprising of delay ranging from 119 days to 129 days. The application for said condonation of delay are almost identically worded. For the sake of convenience, the application for AY 2018-19 is extracted as under: “1. Order of CIT (A) was received in the office of the PCIT-5, Kolkata on 23.01.2024.

Section 148A

delay in filing appeal may kindly be condoned.” Considering the reasons given in the said application, these appeals are admitted for adjudication. 2. The appellant is a local authority engaged in providing port services for over a century. It is functioning under the direct control and supervision of the Ministry of Shipping under the Union Govt. In the 4 years

KAMAKSHI JUTE INDUSTRIES LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIC, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, ITA No. 1073/KOL/2023 is dismissed

ITA 1073/KOL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Feb 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Sri Anikesh Banerjee

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

condoned by the ld. CIT(A). But after considering the submission of the assessee, ld. CIT(A) had passed a speaking order and upheld the assessment order. Being aggrieved, assessee filed an appeal before us. 6. Ld. D/R vehemently argued and invited our attention to page no. 9–12 of the appeal order which is reproduced as below: “The language

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)

1,96,09,000 ----------------- 57,93,96,000 ----------------- The ld CITA by placing reliance on the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Emami Ltd vs CIT reported in 200 Taxman 326 (Cal) directed the ld AO not to charge interest u/s 234 B and 234C of the Act as the same is levied only

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)

1,96,09,000 ----------------- 57,93,96,000 ----------------- The ld CITA by placing reliance on the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Emami Ltd vs CIT reported in 200 Taxman 326 (Cal) directed the ld AO not to charge interest u/s 234 B and 234C of the Act as the same is levied only

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)

1,96,09,000 ----------------- 57,93,96,000 ----------------- The ld CITA by placing reliance on the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Emami Ltd vs CIT reported in 200 Taxman 326 (Cal) directed the ld AO not to charge interest u/s 234 B and 234C of the Act as the same is levied only

M/S KIRITIKUNJ AUTOMOBILES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ADIT, CPC , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed”

ITA 128/KOL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal on merit. 3. In response to the notice of hearing, no one has come present on behalf of the assessee. On earlier occasion also, we adjudicated the hearing in the absence of assessee and thereafter a letter was received by us and we re-fix the appeal for hearing. Inspite

VARELI TECNAC PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. CPC, , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 44/KOL/2022[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata24 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Borad(1) I.T.A. No. 52/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Greenage Griha Nirman (P) Limited,......................................Appellant C/O. M/S. Salarpuria Jajodia & Co., 7, C.R. Avenue, 3 Rd Floor, Kolkata-700072 [Pan: Aadcb3044P] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,.................................Respondent Cpc, Bengaluru Appearances By: Sri Siddharth Jhajharia, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Biswanath Das, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue & (2)

Section 139(1)Section 2Section 36(1)(va)

condone the delay and the appeal is admitted on merit. 3. Since most of the issues in all these appeals are common, therefore, we have decided to dispose of the appeals by a common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 4. From the perusal of the grounds of appeals, we find that the only common issue relates

RAJIV SARKAR,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-5(3), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 15/KOL/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata24 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Borad(1) I.T.A. No. 52/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Greenage Griha Nirman (P) Limited,......................................Appellant C/O. M/S. Salarpuria Jajodia & Co., 7, C.R. Avenue, 3 Rd Floor, Kolkata-700072 [Pan: Aadcb3044P] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,.................................Respondent Cpc, Bengaluru Appearances By: Sri Siddharth Jhajharia, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Biswanath Das, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue & (2)

Section 139(1)Section 2Section 36(1)(va)

condone the delay and the appeal is admitted on merit. 3. Since most of the issues in all these appeals are common, therefore, we have decided to dispose of the appeals by a common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 4. From the perusal of the grounds of appeals, we find that the only common issue relates

PRAKASH ROAD LINES CORPORATION LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ADIT, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 24/KOL/2022[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata24 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Borad(1) I.T.A. No. 52/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Greenage Griha Nirman (P) Limited,......................................Appellant C/O. M/S. Salarpuria Jajodia & Co., 7, C.R. Avenue, 3 Rd Floor, Kolkata-700072 [Pan: Aadcb3044P] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,.................................Respondent Cpc, Bengaluru Appearances By: Sri Siddharth Jhajharia, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Biswanath Das, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue & (2)

Section 139(1)Section 2Section 36(1)(va)

condone the delay and the appeal is admitted on merit. 3. Since most of the issues in all these appeals are common, therefore, we have decided to dispose of the appeals by a common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 4. From the perusal of the grounds of appeals, we find that the only common issue relates