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.

91 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 40A(9)clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai193Kolkata91Mumbai90Delhi41Bangalore40Amritsar34Hyderabad27Pune27Ahmedabad26Jaipur26Cuttack23Indore19Raipur14Lucknow12Visakhapatnam12Surat6Cochin5Chandigarh5Nagpur4Rajkot4Patna3SC2Jabalpur1Allahabad1Dehradun1Agra1

Key Topics

Addition to Income68Section 143(3)67Section 14A62Condonation of Delay56Disallowance54Limitation/Time-bar48Section 40A(3)46Section 25038Deduction

ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. ITC INFOTECH INDIA LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 220/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2075/Kol/2017 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.220 To 222/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11 To 2013-14)

For Appellant: Dr. P. K Srihari, CIT(DR) & Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Advocate & Shri Bikash Chanda, FCA
Section 143(3)Section 40

condone the delay in all appeals filed by the assessee, as these contain the identical grounds. 5. Although these appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Assessee for A.Y. 2010- 11 to 2013-14 contained multiple grounds of appeal. However, at the time of hearing, we have carefully perused all the grounds raised by the Revenue as well

ITC INFOTECH INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIR-2(1), KOLKATA

Showing 1–20 of 91 · Page 1 of 5

25
Section 4023
Section 115J15
Section 26314

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 552/KOL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2075/Kol/2017 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.220 To 222/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11 To 2013-14)

For Appellant: Dr. P. K Srihari, CIT(DR) & Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Advocate & Shri Bikash Chanda, FCA
Section 143(3)Section 40

condone the delay in all appeals filed by the assessee, as these contain the identical grounds. 5. Although these appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Assessee for A.Y. 2010- 11 to 2013-14 contained multiple grounds of appeal. However, at the time of hearing, we have carefully perused all the grounds raised by the Revenue as well

ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. ITC INFOTECH INDIA LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 221/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2075/Kol/2017 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.220 To 222/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11 To 2013-14)

For Appellant: Dr. P. K Srihari, CIT(DR) & Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Advocate & Shri Bikash Chanda, FCA
Section 143(3)Section 40

condone the delay in all appeals filed by the assessee, as these contain the identical grounds. 5. Although these appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Assessee for A.Y. 2010- 11 to 2013-14 contained multiple grounds of appeal. However, at the time of hearing, we have carefully perused all the grounds raised by the Revenue as well

M/S. ITC INFOTECH INDIA LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 487/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2075/Kol/2017 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.220 To 222/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11 To 2013-14)

For Appellant: Dr. P. K Srihari, CIT(DR) & Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Advocate & Shri Bikash Chanda, FCA
Section 143(3)Section 40

condone the delay in all appeals filed by the assessee, as these contain the identical grounds. 5. Although these appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Assessee for A.Y. 2010- 11 to 2013-14 contained multiple grounds of appeal. However, at the time of hearing, we have carefully perused all the grounds raised by the Revenue as well

M/S ITC INFOTECH INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR - 2(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 488/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2075/Kol/2017 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.220 To 222/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11 To 2013-14)

For Appellant: Dr. P. K Srihari, CIT(DR) & Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Advocate & Shri Bikash Chanda, FCA
Section 143(3)Section 40

condone the delay in all appeals filed by the assessee, as these contain the identical grounds. 5. Although these appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Assessee for A.Y. 2010- 11 to 2013-14 contained multiple grounds of appeal. However, at the time of hearing, we have carefully perused all the grounds raised by the Revenue as well

ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ITC INFOTECH INDIA LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2075/KOL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2075/Kol/2017 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.220 To 222/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11 To 2013-14)

For Appellant: Dr. P. K Srihari, CIT(DR) & Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Advocate & Shri Bikash Chanda, FCA
Section 143(3)Section 40

condone the delay in all appeals filed by the assessee, as these contain the identical grounds. 5. Although these appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Assessee for A.Y. 2010- 11 to 2013-14 contained multiple grounds of appeal. However, at the time of hearing, we have carefully perused all the grounds raised by the Revenue as well

M/S. ITC INFOTECH INDIA LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 486/KOL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2075/Kol/2017 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.220 To 222/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11 To 2013-14)

For Appellant: Dr. P. K Srihari, CIT(DR) & Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Advocate & Shri Bikash Chanda, FCA
Section 143(3)Section 40

condone the delay in all appeals filed by the assessee, as these contain the identical grounds. 5. Although these appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Assessee for A.Y. 2010- 11 to 2013-14 contained multiple grounds of appeal. However, at the time of hearing, we have carefully perused all the grounds raised by the Revenue as well

DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1) , KOLKATA vs. M/S. L & T FINANCE LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1781/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15 Deputy Commissioner Of L & T Finance Ltd. Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Vs. 7Th Floor, A Wing, Block Bp, Kolkata Sector V, Kolkata-700091. (Pan: Aacca1963B) (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No. 10/Kol/2023 In Ita No.1781/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 L & T Finance Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. 7Th Floor, A Wing, Block Bp, Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Sector V, Kolkata-700091. Kolkata. (Cross Objector) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Soumen Adak, FCA & Shri Ashish Poddar, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Kapil Mondal, Addl. CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 253Section 5Section 92B

condone the delay in filing of the appeal as well as the cross-objection and proceed to adjudicate them on merits. 3. Since the assessee has raised pure question of law in its Cross Objection, we are inclined to take up the Cross Objection filed by the assessee before adjudicating on the appeal by the revenue. Ground of Cross Objection

DCIT, CIRCLE - 4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. TATA TEA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 2105/KOL/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: S/Shri Manish Sheth & Prasun Kr. Maity, ARsFor Respondent: N o n e
Section 143(3)

40A(9) is not applicable because this section stands for any funds, institutions, where the assessee made the subscription for the purpose of welfare of the employees. That means that there should be a complete identity between the donor and the done. Here staff recreation club and the staff club were a part and parcel of the Tata

TATA TEA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, C IRCLE- 4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 511/KOL/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: S/Shri Manish Sheth & Prasun Kr. Maity, ARsFor Respondent: N o n e
Section 143(3)

40A(9) is not applicable because this section stands for any funds, institutions, where the assessee made the subscription for the purpose of welfare of the employees. That means that there should be a complete identity between the donor and the done. Here staff recreation club and the staff club were a part and parcel of the Tata

SAHABUDDIN QUADIRI,MURSHIDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-42, MURSHIDABAD, MURSHIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1617/KOL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini[Assessment Year: 2010-11] Sahabuddin Quadiri, Vs Dcit, Saratpally, Chuanpur, Circle-42, Laldighi, 57, Berhampore, R.N.Tagore Road, Berhampore, Murshidabad-742101. Murshidabad-742101. Pan-Aaapq7976P (Assessee) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 5. By way of this appeal, the assessee appellant has challenged correctness of the order dated 30.03.2015, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT)-14, SAHABUDDIN QUADIRI [Assessment Year: 2010-11] Kolkata, for the assessment year 2010-11. Grievances raised by the assessee are as follows. (1) That

M/S KOHINOOR STEEL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-3(3), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 27/KOL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Anikesh Banerjee]

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 15Section 250Section 68Section 9

condone the delay of eighteen (18) days. 4. Brief fact of the case is that the assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act against the assessee with an addition amount to Rs. 83,75,000/- u/s 68 of the Act related to transaction of share capital and share premium which was taken from different entities against the high

SHRI ARUN KUMAR JHUNJHUNWALA,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD-48(1). KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2250/KOL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jul 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No.2250/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Arun Kr. Jhunjhunwala. -Vs.- I.T.O., Ward-48(1) Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acopj 2610 D] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri Miraj D.Shah, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri M.K.Biswas, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 22.06.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2017 Order

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D.Shah, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Biswas, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 40Section 40A(2)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act ‘) dated 23.12.2011 for the Asst Year 2009-10. 2. At the outset, there is a delay in filing the appeal by the assessee by 35 days for which a delay condonation petition has been filed by the assessee. It was stated that the assessee

DCIT, KOLKATA vs. SUJIT ARYA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 751/KOL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Sujit Arya Dcit P-3, Paramathesh Barun Sarani, 3, Govt Place West, Kolkata- New Cit Road, Central Metro, Vs. 700001, West Bengal Kolkata-700073, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Actpa8796J Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Dr Date Of Hearing: 02.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.12.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR
Section 133A

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. Sujit Arya; A.Y. 2014-15 3. The issue raised in ground nos.1 & 2, is against the deletion of addition of ₹4,41,61,742/- by the ld. CIT (A) as made by the ld. AO in respect of undisclosed income admitted by the assessee during survey u/s 133A

THE PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE & INVESTMENT CO. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 938/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Singh, CIT, ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37(1)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 48

40A(2)(b) of the Act without calling for Remand Report. (5). Grounds raised by the assesse in ITA No. 938/Kol/2018, for A.Y 2010­11, relates to action of the Assessing Officer in treating Government securities within the meaning of “Bonds” for the purpose of third proviso to section 48 of the Act, and erred in dismissing the assessee’s claim

THE PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE & INVESTMENT CO. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 937/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Singh, CIT, ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37(1)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 48

40A(2)(b) of the Act without calling for Remand Report. (5). Grounds raised by the assesse in ITA No. 938/Kol/2018, for A.Y 2010­11, relates to action of the Assessing Officer in treating Government securities within the meaning of “Bonds” for the purpose of third proviso to section 48 of the Act, and erred in dismissing the assessee’s claim

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

9. We have considered the rival submissions and also perused the relevant material available on record. It is observed that the main business of the assessee is that of purchase and sale of its shares either on its own account or on behalf of its clients on brokerage basis, and all the transactions giving profit or loss from different activities

M/S. KENDWA PACHWAI SHOP,ASANSOL vs. ITO,WARD-2(2), ASANSOL. , ASANSOL

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

ITA 655/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40A(3)

40A(3) and passed the assessment order under section 143(3) on 22.12.2016. 3. Dissatisfied with the assessment order, the assessee carried the matter in appeal. The ld. 1st Appellate Authority has dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. The ld. CIT(Appeals) has observed that notices were issued more than six times. These notices were sent to the assessee

GOURI SHANKAR JAIN,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CEN.CIR. 2(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 351/KOL/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaassessment Year: 2013-14 Gouri Shankar Jain Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) C/O. S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates “Seben Brothers”, Vs. P.O. Buroshibtala, P.S. Chinsurah, Dist. Hooghly, 712105. Pan: Acvpj2347N (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Surendra Kumar Mishra, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 17.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.02.2022 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Is Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre Dated 31.12.2015 For A.Y. 2013-14. 2. At The Outset, It Is Noted That There Is A Delay Of 100 Days On The Part Of The Assessee In Filing This Appeal Before The Tribunal. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application Seeking Condonation Of The Said Delay & Keeping In View The Reasons Given Therein, We Are Satisfied That There Is A Sufficient Cause For The Delay Of 100 Days On The Part Of The Assessee In Filing This Appeal Before The Tribunal & Delay In Filing The Instant Appeal Is Accordingly Condoned.

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Kumar Mishra, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 40ASection 40A(3)

delay in filing the instant appeal is accordingly condoned. 2 Gouri Shankar Jain A.Y. 2013-14 3. The assessee raised the issue in this appeal are as follows: i. For that the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC failed to appreciate that none of the conditions precedent existed for the Ld. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle

DCIT, CIR-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S RECKITT BENCKISER (I) LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas Appeals of the revenue are dismissed to the extent indicated above

ITA 518/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jun 2020AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.404/Kol/2015 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.625/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, Advocate & Shri Rohan Khare, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P. K Srihari, CIT(DR)

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the revenue for hearing on merits. 3. Since the issues involved in all the appeals are common and identical, therefore these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as facts narrated in ITA No. 625/Kol/2016