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.

219 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 77clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai346Mumbai292Delhi225Kolkata219Bangalore162Pune162Hyderabad154Ahmedabad145Karnataka127Jaipur103Chandigarh69Visakhapatnam58Indore43Surat41Calcutta39Cuttack28Lucknow27Cochin24Patna21Raipur21Nagpur20Kerala17Guwahati17SC15Rajkot14Amritsar13Telangana10Panaji8Agra5Jodhpur5Jabalpur4Allahabad4Orissa3Varanasi2Himachal Pradesh2Andhra Pradesh1Ranchi1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)70Addition to Income69Section 14A50Limitation/Time-bar49Section 6844Disallowance42Section 25040Condonation of Delay34Section 147

THE WEST BENGAL NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF JURIDICIAL SCIENCE,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEMPTION) , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2643/KOL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Sept 2020AY 2016-17
Section 10Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 2Section 263

section (3) are entitled in the aggregate, at any time during the previous year, to not less than twenty pe aggregate, at any time during the previous year, to not less than twenty pe aggregate, at any time during the previous year, to not less than twenty per cent of the profits of such concern.] the profits of such concern

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

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

Showing 1–20 of 219 · Page 1 of 11

...
33
Section 26329
Deduction23
Section 143(2)22
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 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 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. 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

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

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. 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 - 4(2), KOLKATA vs. M/S. MANAKSIA LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1611/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year : 2014-15 Acit, Circle-4(2), Kolkata M/S. Manaksia Limited 8/1, Lalbazar Street Vs Kolkata – 700 001 Pan : Aaach6882J अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) C.O. No. 13/Kol/2021 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Manaksia Limited Acit, Circle-4(2), Kolkata 8/1, Lalbazar Street Vs Kolkata – 700 001 Pan : Aaach6882J अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocae & Ms. Lata Goyal, Aca Revenue By : Shri Tushal Dhawal Singh, Cit, D/R

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocae & Ms. Lata Goyal, ACAFor Respondent: Shri Tushal Dhawal Singh, CIT, D/R
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253Section 5

Section 253 of the Act, authorizes the respondent to file cross-objection against any part of the impugned order by which it is aggrieved. The procedure contemplated in the Income Tax Rules, 1962 and followed by the Registry is that on receipt of an appeal from the appellant it issues notice to the respondent. Though it is not a notice

DEEPAK BAJAJ ,KOLKATA vs. CIT- 14, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 492/KOL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Dilip Chatterjee, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 263

77, S. P. Mukherjee Road, Vs. 37(1), Kolkata. Kalighat, Kolkata-700026. (PAN: AEEPB5525K) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Appellant by : Shri Dilip Chatterjee, Advocate Assessee by : Shri D. K. Sonawal, CIT, DR Date of Hearing : 24.11.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 09.02.2023 O R D E R PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is against the revision

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

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 6. The assessee has assailed the revisionary proceedings u/s 263 of the Act and consequent order as invalid and bad in law as the same are barred by limitation.the assessee has also challenged the order passed u/s 263 of the Act on the ground that the assessment is neither erroneous

ISDEC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MILKHIRAM MARKET, SAKCHI, JAMSHEDPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE

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

ITA 730/KOL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jul 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(1)Section 234CSection 250

condonation of delay along with supporting documents 6. Ground 6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on the mere technical ground of delay in filing, without appreciating the well-settled principle that no lax can be collected without the authority of law The rejection

RAMAKRISHNA RAO,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), ALIPURDUAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 541/KOL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sailen Samadder, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 90

77,170/- by an order u/s. 143(1) of the Act dated 15.12.2021. Thereafter, the assessee made a rectification petition u/s. 154 of the Act but the same was not allowed. Thereafter, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who, without going into the merits of the case, dismissed the assessee’s appeal on account of delay

BIRENDRANATH SAMANTA,BURDWAN vs. ACIT, CIR-2, BURDWAN, BURDWAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 227/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 227/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Birendra Nath Samanta Assistant Commissioner Of Anandapally, Sripally Vs Income Tax, Cirlce-2, Burdwan Burdwan - 713103 [Pan : Akaps8240C] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. Puja Somani, C.A. Revenue By : Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/05/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/06/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Cit(A)”], Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Dated 12/05/2022 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 253 Days In Filing Of This Appeal. In The Condonation Application, The Assessee Stated That An Affidavit & An Application Has Been Filed Wherein It Has Been Submitted That The Impugned Order Was Passed On 12/05/2022 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dismissing The Assessee’S Appeal Ex-Parte. The Said Appellate Order Was Sent Through E- Mail At Debudan1975@Gmail.Com, Which Belonged To Shri Debabrata Dan, A Resident Of Burdwan & Looking After The Income Tax Matters

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. Puja Somani, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. CIT
Section 249Section 250Section 253Section 3Section 5

condone the delay and admit this appeal. 9. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. That on the facts of the case and in law the order passed by the learned AO u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 29-12-2017 making additions of Rs.3,55,92,450/- u/s 68 of the Act in respect

NITDAA FOUNDATION,KOLKATA vs. CIT(E), KOLKATA

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

ITA 667/KOL/2024[00]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Aug 2024

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishranitdaa Foundation, Commissioner Of Income Fe 261, Sector-Iii, Salt Lake, Tax (Exemption), Kolkata, Vs West Bengal -700106 10B, Middleton Row, (Pan: Aadtn2308K) West Bengal - 700071 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: S. Banerjee, A.RFor Respondent: Amitava Sen, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)Section 80G(5)(iv)

section 12A(1)(ac) (iii) of the I.T. Act 1961 on 6.5.2022 along with annexures.” 5. In view of the submission made we are of the view that there is sufficient cause for the delay which was neither mala fide/intentional nor 3 Nitdaa Foundation has given any benefit to the assessee. Hence, the delay of 77 days is hereby condoned

DR. MURARI MOHAN KOLEY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-55(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 559/KOL/2014[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Mar 2017AY 2004-2005

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

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 271(1)(b)

77[section 271FA,] 78[section 271FAB,]79[section 271FB,] 80[section 271G,]] 81[section 271GA,] 81a[section 271GB,] 82[section 271H,] 83[section 271-I,] clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA] or 84[section 272B or] 85[sub-section (1) 86[or sub-section

KAUSHALYA SINGHA,DARJEELING vs. ITO, WARD - 1(4), SILIGURI

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

ITA 611/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 250Section 5Section 69A

Section 147 of the Act whereas the AO has treated the entire cash deposit of Rs. 26,07,000/- and non-cash deposit of Rs. 1,70,844/-; total amounting to Rs. 27,77,844/- to be unexplained money and the AO has further made an addition of Rs. 60,837/- under the head ‘income from other sources’. The said

ISLAMPUR C S SHOP 2,ISLAMPUR, UTTAR DINAJPUR vs. I.T.O., WARD - 2(4), RAIGANJ, UTTAR DINAJPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2191/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Mar 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz)

Section 147Section 148Section 69A

77 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, he pleaded to condone the delay. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to condone the delay since the delay is not due to negligence on the part of assessee and the assessee has established sufficient cause to condone the delay. Hence the delay

M/S RECKITT BENCKISER (I) PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-12(1), KOLKATA, 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 625/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

RECKITT DENCKISER (INDIA) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-12(1), KOLKATA, 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 404/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jun 2020AY 2010-2011

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