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.

354 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 78clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai428Chennai416Kolkata354Delhi338Bangalore171Ahmedabad165Karnataka148Pune132Hyderabad104Chandigarh102Jaipur95Visakhapatnam50Lucknow45Amritsar45Surat39Calcutta36Indore33Nagpur28Cuttack26Cochin25Guwahati24Raipur23Patna19Panaji18Rajkot13SC10Jodhpur7Allahabad6Telangana6Dehradun5Jabalpur3Orissa2Rajasthan2Ranchi2Andhra Pradesh1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Varanasi1Agra1

Key Topics

Section 250308Addition to Income60Section 6855Section 143(3)47Section 14736Condonation of Delay35Section 14834Limitation/Time-bar31Section 131

JYOTI RANJAN ROY(LIMITED GUAREDIAN -SUVAJIT ROY),KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 49(1), KOLKATA

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

ITA 261/KOL/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 May 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.963/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Jyoti Ranjan Roy Represented By Limited Guardian Suvajit Roy.............................……….……Appellant Block Ac-155, Sector-1, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700064. [Pan:Adlpr2179P] Vs. Acit, Circle-50, Kolkata.............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent I.T.A. No.314/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Jyoti Ranjan Roy ……………………………..............................……….……Appellant Block Ac-155, Sector-1, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700064. [Pan: Adlpr2179P] Vs. Acit, Circle-50, Kolkata.............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent I.T.A. No.261/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Jyoti Ranjan Roy ……………………………..............................……….……Appellant Block Ac-155, Sector-1, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700064. [Pan: Adlpr2179P] Vs. Dcit, Circle-49(1), Kolkata.............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent

Section 250Section 253(3)Section 68

Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice vide Shakuntala Devi Jain Vs. Kuntal Kumari [AIR 1969 SC 575] and State of West Bengal Vs. The Administrator, Howrah Municipality [AIR 1972 SC 749]. It must be remembered that in every case of delay there can be some lapse on the part

Showing 1–20 of 354 · Page 1 of 18

...
27
Section 143(2)24
Unexplained Cash Credit18
Section 26316

JYOTI RANJAN ROY REPRESENTED BY LIMITED GUARDIAN SUVAJIT ROY ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 50, KOLKATA

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

ITA 963/KOL/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 May 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.963/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Jyoti Ranjan Roy Represented By Limited Guardian Suvajit Roy.............................……….……Appellant Block Ac-155, Sector-1, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700064. [Pan:Adlpr2179P] Vs. Acit, Circle-50, Kolkata.............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent I.T.A. No.314/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Jyoti Ranjan Roy ……………………………..............................……….……Appellant Block Ac-155, Sector-1, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700064. [Pan: Adlpr2179P] Vs. Acit, Circle-50, Kolkata.............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent I.T.A. No.261/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Jyoti Ranjan Roy ……………………………..............................……….……Appellant Block Ac-155, Sector-1, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700064. [Pan: Adlpr2179P] Vs. Dcit, Circle-49(1), Kolkata.............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent

Section 250Section 253(3)Section 68

Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice vide Shakuntala Devi Jain Vs. Kuntal Kumari [AIR 1969 SC 575] and State of West Bengal Vs. The Administrator, Howrah Municipality [AIR 1972 SC 749]. It must be remembered that in every case of delay there can be some lapse on the part

JYOTI RANJAN ROY,KOLKATA vs. ACIT,(I.T.) CIR.-50, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed\nfor statistical purposes

ITA 314/KOL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 May 2025AY 2006-07
Section 250Section 253(3)Section 263Section 68

Section 5 of the Limitation Act should\nreceive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice\nvide Shakuntala Devi Jain Vs. Kuntal Kumari [AIR_1969 SC 575] and\nState of West Bengal Vs. The Administrator, Howrah Municipality [AIR\n1972 SC 749]. It must be remembered that in every case of delay there\ncan be some lapse on the part

DCIT, CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. NALINI BHASKARAN , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

ITA 574/KOL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 250

condone the delay in the interest of justice and decide all these appeals on merit. 7. Earlier these appeals were disposed of on the ground that the tax effect by virtue of relief given by the ld. CIT(Appeals) is less than the monetary limit. However, Revenue has filed Miscellaneous Applications bearing Nos. 86 to 120/KOL/2023. It was pleaded

DCIT, CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. NALINI BHASKARAN , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

ITA 562/KOL/2023[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jun 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 250

condone the delay in the interest of justice and decide all these appeals on merit. 7. Earlier these appeals were disposed of on the ground that the tax effect by virtue of relief given by the ld. CIT(Appeals) is less than the monetary limit. However, Revenue has filed Miscellaneous Applications bearing Nos. 86 to 120/KOL/2023. It was pleaded

DCIT,CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. THARUR BHASKARAN, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

ITA 586/KOL/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jun 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 250

condone the delay in the interest of justice and decide all these appeals on merit. 7. Earlier these appeals were disposed of on the ground that the tax effect by virtue of relief given by the ld. CIT(Appeals) is less than the monetary limit. However, Revenue has filed Miscellaneous Applications bearing Nos. 86 to 120/KOL/2023. It was pleaded

DCIT,CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. THARUR BHASKARAN, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

ITA 588/KOL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 250

condone the delay in the interest of justice and decide all these appeals on merit. 7. Earlier these appeals were disposed of on the ground that the tax effect by virtue of relief given by the ld. CIT(Appeals) is less than the monetary limit. However, Revenue has filed Miscellaneous Applications bearing Nos. 86 to 120/KOL/2023. It was pleaded

DCIT,CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. THARUR BHASKARAN, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

ITA 585/KOL/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jun 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 250

condone the delay in the interest of justice and decide all these appeals on merit. 7. Earlier these appeals were disposed of on the ground that the tax effect by virtue of relief given by the ld. CIT(Appeals) is less than the monetary limit. However, Revenue has filed Miscellaneous Applications bearing Nos. 86 to 120/KOL/2023. It was pleaded

DCIT, CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. NALINI BHASKARAN , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

ITA 564/KOL/2023[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jun 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 250

condone the delay in the interest of justice and decide all these appeals on merit. 7. Earlier these appeals were disposed of on the ground that the tax effect by virtue of relief given by the ld. CIT(Appeals) is less than the monetary limit. However, Revenue has filed Miscellaneous Applications bearing Nos. 86 to 120/KOL/2023. It was pleaded

DCIT, CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. NALINI BHASKARAN , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

ITA 567/KOL/2023[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jun 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 250

condone the delay in the interest of justice and decide all these appeals on merit. 7. Earlier these appeals were disposed of on the ground that the tax effect by virtue of relief given by the ld. CIT(Appeals) is less than the monetary limit. However, Revenue has filed Miscellaneous Applications bearing Nos. 86 to 120/KOL/2023. It was pleaded

DCIT, CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. NALINI BHASKARAN , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

ITA 573/KOL/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 250

condone the delay in the interest of justice and decide all these appeals on merit. 7. Earlier these appeals were disposed of on the ground that the tax effect by virtue of relief given by the ld. CIT(Appeals) is less than the monetary limit. However, Revenue has filed Miscellaneous Applications bearing Nos. 86 to 120/KOL/2023. It was pleaded

DCIT, CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. NALINI BHASKARAN , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

ITA 563/KOL/2023[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jun 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 250

condone the delay in the interest of justice and decide all these appeals on merit. 7. Earlier these appeals were disposed of on the ground that the tax effect by virtue of relief given by the ld. CIT(Appeals) is less than the monetary limit. However, Revenue has filed Miscellaneous Applications bearing Nos. 86 to 120/KOL/2023. It was pleaded

DCIT, CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. NALINI BHASKARAN , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

ITA 568/KOL/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jun 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 250

condone the delay in the interest of justice and decide all these appeals on merit. 7. Earlier these appeals were disposed of on the ground that the tax effect by virtue of relief given by the ld. CIT(Appeals) is less than the monetary limit. However, Revenue has filed Miscellaneous Applications bearing Nos. 86 to 120/KOL/2023. It was pleaded

DCIT,CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. THARUR BHASKARAN, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

ITA 584/KOL/2023[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jun 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 250

condone the delay in the interest of justice and decide all these appeals on merit. 7. Earlier these appeals were disposed of on the ground that the tax effect by virtue of relief given by the ld. CIT(Appeals) is less than the monetary limit. However, Revenue has filed Miscellaneous Applications bearing Nos. 86 to 120/KOL/2023. It was pleaded

DCIT, CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. NALINI BHASKARAN , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

ITA 575/KOL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 250

condone the delay in the interest of justice and decide all these appeals on merit. 7. Earlier these appeals were disposed of on the ground that the tax effect by virtue of relief given by the ld. CIT(Appeals) is less than the monetary limit. However, Revenue has filed Miscellaneous Applications bearing Nos. 86 to 120/KOL/2023. It was pleaded

DCIT, CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. NALINI BHASKARAN , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

ITA 577/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 250

condone the delay in the interest of justice and decide all these appeals on merit. 7. Earlier these appeals were disposed of on the ground that the tax effect by virtue of relief given by the ld. CIT(Appeals) is less than the monetary limit. However, Revenue has filed Miscellaneous Applications bearing Nos. 86 to 120/KOL/2023. It was pleaded

DCIT, CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. NALINI BHASKARAN , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

ITA 565/KOL/2023[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jun 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 250

condone the delay in the interest of justice and decide all these appeals on merit. 7. Earlier these appeals were disposed of on the ground that the tax effect by virtue of relief given by the ld. CIT(Appeals) is less than the monetary limit. However, Revenue has filed Miscellaneous Applications bearing Nos. 86 to 120/KOL/2023. It was pleaded

DCIT,CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. THARUR BHASKARAN, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

ITA 583/KOL/2023[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jun 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 250

condone the delay in the interest of justice and decide all these appeals on merit. 7. Earlier these appeals were disposed of on the ground that the tax effect by virtue of relief given by the ld. CIT(Appeals) is less than the monetary limit. However, Revenue has filed Miscellaneous Applications bearing Nos. 86 to 120/KOL/2023. It was pleaded

DCIT, CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. NALINI BHASKARAN , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

ITA 569/KOL/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jun 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 250

condone the delay in the interest of justice and decide all these appeals on merit. 7. Earlier these appeals were disposed of on the ground that the tax effect by virtue of relief given by the ld. CIT(Appeals) is less than the monetary limit. However, Revenue has filed Miscellaneous Applications bearing Nos. 86 to 120/KOL/2023. It was pleaded

DCIT,CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. THARUR BHASKARAN, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

ITA 582/KOL/2023[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jun 2024AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 250

condone the delay in the interest of justice and decide all these appeals on merit. 7. Earlier these appeals were disposed of on the ground that the tax effect by virtue of relief given by the ld. CIT(Appeals) is less than the monetary limit. However, Revenue has filed Miscellaneous Applications bearing Nos. 86 to 120/KOL/2023. It was pleaded