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.

230 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 43(6)(b)clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai557Delhi469Mumbai357Kolkata230Hyderabad226Bangalore176Jaipur170Ahmedabad161Pune147Karnataka145Chandigarh134Nagpur67Amritsar46Cuttack41Raipur39Lucknow38Indore38Calcutta37Visakhapatnam33Surat32Cochin26SC24Guwahati16Rajkot15Patna12Varanasi12Telangana10Allahabad9Dehradun5Rajasthan5Jodhpur5Panaji4Orissa4Himachal Pradesh1Jabalpur1Andhra Pradesh1Agra1Ranchi1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)68Addition to Income64Section 26353Section 25050Section 14747Limitation/Time-bar46Disallowance44Section 115J42Condonation of Delay

LOHIA SECURITIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 6, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 487/KOL/2012[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2015AY 2008-2009

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganeshita No. 487/Kol/2012 A.Y 2008-09 M/S. Lohia Securities Ltd Vs. Dcit, Circle-6, Kolkata Pan: Aaacl 5834A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Dilip Kumar Patni, CA, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT, ld.DR
Section 143(3)Section 43(5)Section 43(5)(d)Section 73

b) and (c ) of section 43(5) of the Act. 2.6. The Learned DR argued that assessee is a company dealing in shares and also earning brokerage income and does not fall in exceptions to explanation to section 73 of the Act. He argued that section 73 of the Act is a special provision whereas section 43

Showing 1–20 of 230 · Page 1 of 12

...
40
Section 14A38
Section 14834
Section 36(1)(va)32

DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. THE SUN ROLLING MILLS PVT. LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 333/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am] I.T.A. No. 333/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-13 D.C.I.T. Cir 3(1), Kolkata..............................…………………………...........................Appellant P-7, Chowringhee Square, Aayakar Bhawan, 4Th Floor, Room No. 19, Kolkata – 700 069 M/S. The Sun Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd....................…….........................................Respondent P-2, New Cit Road, Kolkata – 700 073. [Pan: Aabct 2647 N] Appearances By: Shri P.K. Mondal, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri Naresh Kumar Goyal, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 16, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 18, 2018 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(Appeals) – 1, Kolkata Dated 29.11.2017 & The Solitary Issue Involved Therein Relates To The Deletion By The Ld. Cit(A) Of The Addition Of Rs. 1,07,65,892/- Made By The A.O. On Account Of Disallowance Of Assessee’S Claim For Depreciation At Higher Rate On Rolls.

Section 32(1)

condone 2 I.T.A. No. 333/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. The sun Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. the said delay and proceed to dispose of this appeal of the revenue on merit. 3. The assessee in the present is a company which is engaged in the business of running iron and steel re-rolling mill. The return of income

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. NARIMAN FINVEST (P) LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed and that of assessee’s CO is partly allowed

ITA 1614/KOL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Aug 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 43(5)

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. First we take up Revenue’s appeal in ITA No.1614/Kol/11 3. The first issue raised by the Revenue is that Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by Assessing Officer for ₹33,60,261/- as speculation loss. 4. Brief facts are that assessee is a Private Limited Company

ITO, WARD-5(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. FORTUNE INTERFINANCE LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2064/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Aug 2016AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

Section 43(5)Section 73

delay is condoned. At this juncture the matter is taken up for admission hearing. Since we have dismissed already an appeal being ITAT 147 of 2010 which has also been impugned here on the self-same facts· and circumstances and in this case also it appears that assessing officer deleted the claim of Rs.10,06,974/· on account of loss

INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOLKATA vs. SHIVRASHI VANIJYA PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is hereby treated as allowed

ITA 1098/KOL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Aug 2025AY 2013-14
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148(2)Section 253Section 68

delay is hereby condoned.\n3. Brief facts of the case of the assessee are that the assessee has filed its return of income for AY 2013-14 declaring total income “Nil”. The return was duly processed and an order was passed u/s 143(3) assessing total income of Rs.16,010/- with income tax liabilities of Rs.4,950/-. The case

MEGAPODE VYAPAAR PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, ITA No. 98/KOL/2023 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 98/KOL/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Mar 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Sri Anikesh Banerjee

Section 144Section 250Section 43(5)

delay for 669 days is condoned, and the matter is taken for adjudication. 3. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal: “1) That the order of the Ld CIT (A) is bad in law and on facts of the case. 2) That the Ld CIT (A) erred in confirming derivative Loss of Rs 6179816/- alleging to be bogus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. DAMODAR VALLEY CORPORATION, KOLKATA

ITA 892/KOL/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Nov 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 211Section 250

condone the delay. However, considerable time has passed since the new system of National Faceless Appeal Centre has been adopted by the Revenue authorities, therefore, proper procedure should be made and system to be streamlined so that there is no delay in filing the appeal on account of the said reason. 3. Since all these appeals pertain to the same

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 7(1), KOLKA, KOLKATA vs. DAMODAR VALLEY CORPORATION, KOLKATA

ITA 890/KOL/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Nov 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 211Section 250

condone the delay. However, considerable time has passed since the new system of National Faceless Appeal Centre has been adopted by the Revenue authorities, therefore, proper procedure should be made and system to be streamlined so that there is no delay in filing the appeal on account of the said reason. 3. Since all these appeals pertain to the same

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. DAMODAR VALLEY CORPORATION, KOLKATA

ITA 891/KOL/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Nov 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 211Section 250

condone the delay. However, considerable time has passed since the new system of National Faceless Appeal Centre has been adopted by the Revenue authorities, therefore, proper procedure should be made and system to be streamlined so that there is no delay in filing the appeal on account of the said reason. 3. Since all these appeals pertain to the same

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CIRCLE - 7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. DAMODAR VALLEY CORPORATION, KOLKATA

ITA 889/KOL/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Nov 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 211Section 250

condone the delay. However, considerable time has passed since the new system of National Faceless Appeal Centre has been adopted by the Revenue authorities, therefore, proper procedure should be made and system to be streamlined so that there is no delay in filing the appeal on account of the said reason. 3. Since all these appeals pertain to the same

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

DCIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. TEGA INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the Cross Objections filed by the assessee (in C

ITA 1049/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L.Saini, Am

For Appellant: DR. P. K. Srihari, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Chidambaram, Advocate
Section 14ASection 92C

6, he shall be entitled to have the amount of the loss set off against his income, profits or gains under any other head in that year, C.O Nos.31, 32 & 33/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/s. Tega Industries Ltd. provided that in computing the profits and gains chargeable under the head " Profits and gains of business

DCIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. TEGA INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the Cross Objections filed by the assessee (in C

ITA 1048/KOL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L.Saini, Am

For Appellant: DR. P. K. Srihari, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Chidambaram, Advocate
Section 14ASection 92C

6, he shall be entitled to have the amount of the loss set off against his income, profits or gains under any other head in that year, C.O Nos.31, 32 & 33/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/s. Tega Industries Ltd. provided that in computing the profits and gains chargeable under the head " Profits and gains of business

DCIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. TEGA INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the Cross Objections filed by the assessee (in C

ITA 1047/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L.Saini, Am

For Appellant: DR. P. K. Srihari, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Chidambaram, Advocate
Section 14ASection 92C

6, he shall be entitled to have the amount of the loss set off against his income, profits or gains under any other head in that year, C.O Nos.31, 32 & 33/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/s. Tega Industries Ltd. provided that in computing the profits and gains chargeable under the head " Profits and gains of business

DCIT, LTU-2, KOLKATA vs. M/S CENTURY PLYBOARDS (I), LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objections of assessee are allowed

ITA 2149/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) &Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] Assessment Year: 2014-15

Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 14A

6) read with section 80IA(10) of the Act. 23. Be that as it may be, it is well known that higher or lower profit of a business in comparison to other units can be as a result of the cumulative effect of several factors. For instance, from the facts of the present case, it is noted that apart from

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 4 KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MURLIDHAR RATANLAL EXPORTS LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the COs of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2245/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tulsyan &For Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, DR
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

condone the delay and admit the appeals of the revenue for adjudication. A.Y. 2013-14 CO No. 42/KOL/2025 04. Since, the assessee has raised legal issue in cross objection filed, challenging the validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on the ground that the conditions envisaged in proviso to Section

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MURLIDHAR RATANLAL EXPORTS LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the COs of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2187/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tulsyan &For Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, DR
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

condone the delay and admit the appeals of the revenue for adjudication. A.Y. 2013-14 CO No. 42/KOL/2025 04. Since, the assessee has raised legal issue in cross objection filed, challenging the validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on the ground that the conditions envisaged in proviso to Section

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MURLIDHAR RATANLAL EXPORTS LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the COs of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2196/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tulsyan &For Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, DR
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

condone the delay and admit the appeals of the revenue for adjudication. A.Y. 2013-14 CO No. 42/KOL/2025 04. Since, the assessee has raised legal issue in cross objection filed, challenging the validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on the ground that the conditions envisaged in proviso to Section

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MURLIDHAR RATANLAL EXPORTS LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the COs of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2179/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tulsyan &For Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, DR
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

condone the delay and admit the appeals of the revenue for adjudication. A.Y. 2013-14 CO No. 42/KOL/2025 04. Since, the assessee has raised legal issue in cross objection filed, challenging the validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on the ground that the conditions envisaged in proviso to Section

DEEPAK BAJAJ ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 40(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 569/KOL/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 263

B” BENCH: KOLKATA [Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member] I.T.A. No. 569/Kol/2021 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Deepak Bajaj Vs. ITO, Ward-40(1), Kolkata (PAN: AEEPB 5525 K) Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing 05.05.2022 Date of Pronouncement 30.06.2022 For the Appellant Shri Dilip Chatterjee, A.R For the Respondent Shri Amitava Bhattacharya, CITDR ORDER Per Shri