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.

255 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 36(1)(v)clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai741Delhi470Mumbai448Kolkata255Bangalore248Jaipur179Ahmedabad157Karnataka146Chandigarh122Hyderabad115Pune103Amritsar86Nagpur81Raipur76Indore65Lucknow56Surat55Visakhapatnam42Cochin39Panaji36Cuttack35Calcutta35Rajkot32SC20Guwahati19Varanasi18Telangana15Jodhpur14Allahabad12Patna11Agra6Orissa5Kerala5Rajasthan4Dehradun2Andhra Pradesh2Himachal Pradesh1

Key Topics

Addition to Income77Limitation/Time-bar56Section 25046Condonation of Delay46Section 26335Section 143(3)32Disallowance32Section 6831Section 148

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 255 · Page 1 of 13

...
31
Section 14A29
Section 143(2)27
Section 115J25

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

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

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

V, Salt Lake, . Kolkata. Kolkata-700 091. (PAN: AABCB0753D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Appellant by : Shri Dipankar Guha, Advocate Respondent by : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT, DR Date of Hearing : 15.09.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 31.10.2022 O R D E R PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order

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

1)(va) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition u/s 36(v)(a) at Rs. 11,12,290/- on the basis of retrospective amendment, as per changes made in Finance Bill 2021, as per his understanding even though Memorandum explaining

TRIO TREND EXPORTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 11(1), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 601/KOL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

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

condone the delay and admit these appeals for hearing. 3. At the outset, the Ld. AR of the assessee pointed out that the only issue in these appeals are against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming disallowance of employees’ contribution made to the respective funds of the Government under PF & ESI Act. According to the authorities below, since

TRIO TREND EXPORTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 11(1), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 602/KOL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

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

condone the delay and admit these appeals for hearing. 3. At the outset, the Ld. AR of the assessee pointed out that the only issue in these appeals are against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming disallowance of employees’ contribution made to the respective funds of the Government under PF & ESI Act. According to the authorities below, since

MD. MUJIBUR RAHAMAN,DURGAPUR vs. ACIT, CIR. 2, DURGAPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 381/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am ]

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

condoned after hearing the parties. 3. The first ground of appeal of assessee is against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the disallowance made in respect of PF & ESI u/s. 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) of Rs.4,54,289/-. At the outset

PNP ENGINEERING WORKS (P) LTD, PURBA MEDINIPUR vs. A C OF INCOME TAX CIR. 27(1) , HALDIA

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

ITA 334/KOL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am ]

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

v. Union of India, (2012) 6 SCC 613 at paras 60 to 70 per Kapadia, C.J. and para 333, 334 per Radhakrishnan, J.” 10. And according to Ld. A.R. the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding the later amendment brought in by Finance Act, 2021 to be retrospective and for that proposition he cited the Constitution Bench decision

PNP ENGINEERING WORKS (P) LTD, PURBA MEDINIPUR vs. A C OF INCOME TAX CIR. 27(1) , HALDIA

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

ITA 333/KOL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am ]

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

v. Union of India, (2012) 6 SCC 613 at paras 60 to 70 per Kapadia, C.J. and para 333, 334 per Radhakrishnan, J.” 10. And according to Ld. A.R. the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding the later amendment brought in by Finance Act, 2021 to be retrospective and for that proposition he cited the Constitution Bench decision

PNP ENGINEERING WORKS (P) LTD, PURBA MEDINIPUR vs. A C OF INCOME TAX CIR. 27(1) , HALDIA

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

ITA 332/KOL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am ]

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

v. Union of India, (2012) 6 SCC 613 at paras 60 to 70 per Kapadia, C.J. and para 333, 334 per Radhakrishnan, J.” 10. And according to Ld. A.R. the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding the later amendment brought in by Finance Act, 2021 to be retrospective and for that proposition he cited the Constitution Bench decision

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

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 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 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, 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

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)

condoned for computation of income as per income Tax Act and is to be considered as Income of the assessee. As such a total sum of Rs.2,22,78,598/- is added back as assessee's income.” 7.1. The assessee stated that Section 2(24)(x) of the Act provides that any sum received by the assessee from his employees

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)

condoned for computation of income as per income Tax Act and is to be considered as Income of the assessee. As such a total sum of Rs.2,22,78,598/- is added back as assessee's income.” 7.1. The assessee stated that Section 2(24)(x) of the Act provides that any sum received by the assessee from his employees

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)

condoned for computation of income as per income Tax Act and is to be considered as Income of the assessee. As such a total sum of Rs.2,22,78,598/- is added back as assessee's income.” 7.1. The assessee stated that Section 2(24)(x) of the Act provides that any sum received by the assessee from his employees

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

delay is 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