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.

278 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 44clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai544Chennai537Delhi502Kolkata278Bangalore217Jaipur155Karnataka148Ahmedabad143Hyderabad141Chandigarh114Pune102Indore74Nagpur74Surat59Visakhapatnam57Raipur52Lucknow45Amritsar44Cuttack40Calcutta39Rajkot37Patna26SC22Dehradun14Telangana13Cochin11Guwahati10Varanasi10Jodhpur8Allahabad8Rajasthan5Orissa5Agra4Jabalpur4Panaji3Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Addition to Income58Section 25055Limitation/Time-bar49Condonation of Delay49Section 14748Section 14839Section 143(3)38Section 6836Section 14A

BLUEBELL TRADECOM LLP (SUCCESSOR OF BLUEBELL TRADECOM PVT. LTD.),KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-2(4), KOLKATA CURRENTLY ITO, WARD-5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 499/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jul 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: the Honorable ITAT and accordingly the appeal was prepared.

Section 271(1)(c)Section 5

condonation of delay. (d) In Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil 2001 (44) ALR 577, the Apex Court made a distinction in delay and inordinate delay observing as under. "In exercising discretion under section

BLUEBELL TRADECOM LLP (SUCCESSOR OF BLUEBELL TRADECOM PVT. LTD.),KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD-1(1) NOW I.T.O., WARD-5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 500/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata

Showing 1–20 of 278 · Page 1 of 14

...
34
Section 26331
Section 143(2)29
Deduction29
08 Jul 2025
AY 2014-2015

Bench: the Honorable ITAT and accordingly the appeal was prepared.

Section 271(1)(c)Section 5

condonation of delay. (d) In Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil 2001 (44) ALR 577, the Apex Court made a distinction in delay and inordinate delay observing as under. "In exercising discretion under section

M/S. JEEVANDARSHI MARKETING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 6(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 509/KOL/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Nov 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 509/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2019-2020 M/S. Jeevandarshi Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(2), Kolkata 4Th Floor Vs 9, India Exchange Place Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aaacj8585A] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, A/R Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24/11/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/11/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 23/08/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act’), For Assessment Year 2019-2020. 2. The Sole Issue Raised By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Order Of The Assessing Officer Wherein The Assessing Officer Had Disallowed The Carry Forward Of Business Loss Of Rs.72,96,597/- On The Ground That The Return Was Filed On 01/11/2019 Whereas The Due Date Of Filing Was On 31/10/2019. 3. Facts In Brief Are That The Assessee Filed The Return Of Income On 01/11/2019 Declaring Total Loss At Rs.72,96,596/-. The Same Was Processed By The Central Processing Centre (Cpc), Bengaluru U/S 143(1) Of The Act Vide Intimation Dt. 30/04/2020, Wherein The Claim Of The Assessee Of Carry Forward Of Loss To Subsequent Year Was Rejected On The Ground That The Return Was Filed On 01/11/2019. 4. Aggrieved The Assesse Carried The Matter In Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A). The Ld. Cit(A) Simply Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee By

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, A/RFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT, D/R
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80I

44 (Bom). Consequently, agreeing with the Karnataka High Court, we are of the view that the Board has the power under Section 119 (2) to condone the delay

SHREE KARNI MATA TRUST,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEMPTION),, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1214/KOL/2025[----]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 5Section 80G

condonation of delay. (d) In Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil 2001 (44) ALR 577, the Apex Court made a distinction in delay and inordinate delay observing as under: "In exercising discretion under section

SHREE KARNI MATA TRUST,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEMPTIION),, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1213/KOL/2025[----]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 5Section 80G

condonation of delay. (d) In Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil 2001 (44) ALR 577, the Apex Court made a distinction in delay and inordinate delay observing as under: "In exercising discretion under section

AVISHI PROJECTS LLP ,KOLKATA vs. ADIT, CPC, BANGALORE. , BANGALORE

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

ITA 1249/KOL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2024AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri S. Jhajharia, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Vineet Kumar, Addl. CIT, D/R
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 5

condonation of delay. In Vedabai vs. Shantaram Baburao Patil 2001 (44) ALR 577, (d) the Hon’ble Apex Court made a distinction in delay and inordinate delay observing as under: "In exercising discretion under section

RITU DUGGAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-29(1), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1122/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, D/R
Section 221(1)Section 250Section 5

condonation of delay. In Vedabai vs. Shantaram Baburao Patil 2001 (44) ALR 577, (d) the Hon’ble Apex Court made a distinction in delay and inordinate delay observing as under: "In exercising discretion under section

GIELLE INVESTMENTS LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WARD- 6(2), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

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

ITA 1151/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. D/R
Section 250

condonation of delay. In Vedabai vs. Shantaram Baburao Patil 2001 (44) ALR 577, the (d) Hon’ble Apex Court made a distinction in delay and inordinate delay observing as under: "In exercising discretion under section

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. ADARSH HEIGHTS PVT LTD, KOLKATA

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1867/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: This Hon'Ble Itat, Kolkata Under Section 253 Of The It Act 1961. 2. The Appellant/Petitioner States That The Impugned Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-20, Kolkata On 17.05.2024 Was Received By The Office Of The Pr Commissioner Of Income Tax Central-1, Kolkata On 17.05.2024. Your Petition States That According To The Income Tax Department, The Last Date Of Filing The Appeal Expired On 17.07.2024 3. Your Petitioner States That There Are Sufficient Reasons/Causes For Condonation The Delay In Filing The Appeal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act 1961 Which Are As Follows:-

Section 250Section 253

44 days. The Revenue has filed a petition for condonation of delay as under: “1. The appellant/petitioner states that being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned order of the Lal. CITIA)-20/11126/2017-18 for the A/Y. 2017-18 in the case of Adarsh Heights Pvt Ltd., an appeal has been preferred before this Hon'ble ITAT, Kolkata under section

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 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 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

VRINDA ENGINEERS PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. PCIT, CER-1, KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

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

ITA 1274/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. Nos. 1274/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Vrinda Engineers Pvt. Ltd.,.......................Appellant C/O. Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite-213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069 [Pan: Aaacv9131E] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Central-1, Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, E.M. Bypass, Kolkata-700107 -A N D- I.T.A. Nos. 1232/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Vrinda Engineers Pvt. Ltd.,.......................Appellant C/O. Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite-213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069 [Pan: Aaacv9131E] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, E.M. Bypass, Kolkata-700107

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 4

condone the delay in filing the appeal and proceed to decide the appeal on merit. 11. The solitary grievance of the assessee is that ld. Commissioner has erred in taking cognizance under section 263 and setting aside the second reassessment order dated 30.09.2019. Before adverting to the show-cause notice issued under section 263, we deem it appropriate to take

VRINDA ENGINEERS PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT,C.C-1(1),KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

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

ITA 1232/KOL/2023[AAACV9131E]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Feb 2024

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. Nos. 1274/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Vrinda Engineers Pvt. Ltd.,.......................Appellant C/O. Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite-213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069 [Pan: Aaacv9131E] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Central-1, Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, E.M. Bypass, Kolkata-700107 -A N D- I.T.A. Nos. 1232/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Vrinda Engineers Pvt. Ltd.,.......................Appellant C/O. Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite-213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069 [Pan: Aaacv9131E] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, E.M. Bypass, Kolkata-700107

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 4

condone the delay in filing the appeal and proceed to decide the appeal on merit. 11. The solitary grievance of the assessee is that ld. Commissioner has erred in taking cognizance under section 263 and setting aside the second reassessment order dated 30.09.2019. Before adverting to the show-cause notice issued under section 263, we deem it appropriate to take

ACIT-6(2), KOLKATA vs. M/S NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 498/KOL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 3. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the records are that the assessee is a limited company engaged in the insurance Page 2 of 20 I.T.A. No.: 498/KOL/2020 Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd. business. Loss of Rs. 5,06,84,425/- declared

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 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

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

SUJOY KRISHNA JANA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT/ACIT, CIRCLE 27(1),, HALDIA

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1236/KOL/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Sept 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

condoning the delay in filing of the Appeal without appreciating that the Appellant had "sufficient cause" for such delay and also not deciding the Appeal on merits. 3. That on the facts and on the circumstances of the case, the ADDL/JCIT(A)- 4, Mumbai. had failed to appreciate/understand that the amendment to sub clause (iv) of clause (a) to section