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.

326 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 80(5)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai582Chennai536Delhi407Kolkata326Bangalore271Ahmedabad188Jaipur180Karnataka175Hyderabad167Pune135Chandigarh133Indore71Visakhapatnam63Amritsar60Lucknow56Cochin49Surat45Panaji42Rajkot40Raipur39Calcutta37Cuttack28Guwahati27Nagpur24Patna21SC17Telangana13Agra13Allahabad12Varanasi9Dehradun7Jabalpur7Jodhpur6Ranchi5Orissa3Andhra Pradesh2Rajasthan2Kerala1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Himachal Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)75Addition to Income60Limitation/Time-bar54Section 25050Section 143(2)46Section 271(1)42Condonation of Delay38Section 14832Section 80I

NABARUN S K U S LTD.,NADIA vs. I.T.O.WARD-41(1), KRISHNANAGAR

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 89/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Dec 2025AY 2018-19
Section 119Section 139Section 80Section 80ASection 80P

condonation under the\nexisting provisions of the Act. The CCSIT/DGsIT shall examine the following while\ndeciding such applications-\n(i) the delay in furnishing the return of income within the due date under sub-\nsection (1) of section 139 of the Act was caused due to circumstances beyond the\ncontrol of the assessee with appropriate documentary evidence

AMALENDU KUMAR MODAK,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , 50(1), KOLKATA

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

Showing 1–20 of 326 · Page 1 of 17

...
32
Section 14A30
Section 143(1)29
Deduction29
ITA 1367/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18 Amalendu Kumar Modak, Income Tax Officer, 50(1), Karer Ganga, Laha Bagan, Garia, Income Tax Office, Civil Centre, Vs Garia Main Road, Kolkata-700084, Uttarapan Complex, West Bengal Manicktala, Kolkata-700 067, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aekpm9399G Present For: Appellant By : Shri Indranil Banerjee, Ar Respondent By : Shri Pradip Kumar Biswas, Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.11.2024 O R D E R Per Rakesh Mishra: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld. Cit (A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For Ay 2017-18 Dated 14.11.2024, Which Has Been Passed Against The Assessment Order U/S 147 Read With Section 144 Read With Section 144B Of The Act, Dated 29.05.2023. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Indranil Banerjee, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pradip Kumar Biswas, DR
Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 149(1)(a)Section 151Section 151ASection 250

5. The ld. CIT (A) was of the view that the appellant needed to provide a valid reason or demonstrate and explain the circumstances of the delay. The reason for denying the request for condonation of delay of 112 days is as extracted hereunder:- “The contention of the appellant is perused. When an appeal is filed beyond the statutory time

PRAMEYA FOUNDATION,KAIKHALI BOINCHBERIA vs. CIT (EXEMPTION) , KOLKATA

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

ITA 954/KOL/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Oct 2024

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraprameya Foundation, Cit (Exemption), Kolkata, Vill- Boinchberia, Po- Kaikhali Income Tax Office, 10B, Falta Boinchberia, Falta South, Vs Middleton Road, 24 Parganas - 743503 Kolkata - 700071 (Pan: Aadtp0927G) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: A. Kundu, CIT DR
Section 80Section 80GSection 80G(5)(iii)Section 80G(5)(iv)

80 G (5) had to be reckoned only with reference to sole condition being "at least 6 months prior to expiry of the period of the provisional approval "(quoted). For that the appellant craves leave to file additional grounds or amend or alter the grounds already taken either before or at the time of hearing of the appeal. 3. Brief

DURGAMONDAP SAMABAY KRISHI UNNAYN SAMATI LTD. ,ITO, WARD NO-49(1), KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD NO- 49(1), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

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

ITA 1153/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80Section 80ASection 80P

delay is hereby condoned and the matter is taken up for adjudication. 2. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee has argued that Section 143(1)(a)(v) of the Act is the critical part of the statute which would determine whether any assessee claiming relief u/s 80P of the Act could be denied the benefit of the same

DCIT, CIRCLE-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. SIMPLEX INFRASTRUCTURES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Ground No. 1 of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 140/KOL/2015[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Oct 2017AY 2005-2006

Bench: Sri N.V. Vasudevan & Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy]

Section 250Section 80Section 80ISection 91

condone the delay and admit these appeal. 4. Facts in brief:- The assessee is a company and is engaged in the business of Ground Engineering, Civil & Structural works, building of power plants, construction of roads and highways etc. and trading in goods. For the Assessment Year 2005- 06, the assessee filed its return of income on 30/10/2005, declaring ‘Nil’ income

DCIT, CIRCLE-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. SIMPLEX INFRASTRUCTURES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Ground No. 1 of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 141/KOL/2015[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Oct 2017AY 2006-2007

Bench: Sri N.V. Vasudevan & Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy]

Section 250Section 80Section 80ISection 91

condone the delay and admit these appeal. 4. Facts in brief:- The assessee is a company and is engaged in the business of Ground Engineering, Civil & Structural works, building of power plants, construction of roads and highways etc. and trading in goods. For the Assessment Year 2005- 06, the assessee filed its return of income on 30/10/2005, declaring ‘Nil’ income

QUALITY BAGS EXPORTERS (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CC-IV, KOL, KOLKATA

In the result the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2787/KOL/2013[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Sept 2016AY 2001-2002

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A Nos. 2787 To 2790/Kol/2013 Assessment Years : 2001-02,2002-03,2003-04 & 2004-05

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Debasish Roy, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 156Section 28Section 80H

5) On enquiry by the Ld. Advocate, the entire facts were explained to him. 6) The Ld. Advocate expressed the opinion that in view of a recent judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Topman Exports vs. CIT (2012) 342 ITR 49, the benefit of deduction U/S 80HHC cannot be denied in respect of the face

PAHALAMPUR SAMABAY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LTD., ,HOOGHLY vs. ITO, WARD 23(1), , HOOGHLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 887/KOL/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Sept 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Pahalampur Samabay Krishi Ito, Ward-23(1), Hooghly Unnayan Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. B. Chakraborthy, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 148Section 153ASection 80Section 80P

condoned and we proceed to dispose of the appeal on merits. Pahalampur Samabay Krishi Unnayan Ltd. 4. It was the submission that the only issue in the appeal is against the action of the ld. CIT(A) in confirming the intimation issued u/s 143(1) of the Act wherein the assessee has been denied the benefit of deduction

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

80-AC are not mandatory but only directory in nature. 6. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and have perused the record of the case. Admittedly, at best the delay is of 46 minutes in filing the e-return. On account of this delay, the acknowledgement bears the date 1-10-2009. There can be several reasons

VICTORIA INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED,KHARAGPUR vs. ADIT, CPC, BENGALURU

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

ITA 130/KOL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri S. Dutta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 3Section 36(1)(va)Section 80J

condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the appeal. 3. At the outset, it is noted that assessee has filed amended grounds of appeal on 12.01.2013 which are reproduced as under: “1. For that, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law, the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is perverse

D.C.I.T CC - XXIII,KOLKATA., KOLKATA vs. M/S SINGHAL ENTERPRISES PVT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both appeal of Revenue stand allowed

ITA 343/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 153ASection 80ASection 80I

condone the delay occurred in filing the income tax return. The ld. DR vehemently supported the order of the AO. On the other hand the ld. AR filed a paper book which is running from pages 1 to 77 and submitted that there was some dispute with regard to the partition of the family property, so the delay occurred which

PRAMOD LAKRA, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALRAMPUR CHINI MILLS LTD , KOLKATA

In the result all the four appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1079/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, &For Respondent: Shri Praveen Kishore, DR
Section 80Section 92C

delay of filing the appeals is hereby condoned. 03. The facts and circumstances in these appeals are identical, hence, for the sake of convenience and brevity, these are decided and disposed ITA No.1079 to 1082/KOL/2025 Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd.; A.Ys. 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21 & 2021-22 of together. First of all we will take ITA no. 1079/KOL/2025

PRAMOD LAKRA, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALRAMPUR CHINI MILLS LTD , KOLKATA

In the result all the four appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1080/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, &For Respondent: Shri Praveen Kishore, DR
Section 80Section 92C

delay of filing the appeals is hereby condoned. 03. The facts and circumstances in these appeals are identical, hence, for the sake of convenience and brevity, these are decided and disposed ITA No.1079 to 1082/KOL/2025 Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd.; A.Ys. 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21 & 2021-22 of together. First of all we will take ITA no. 1079/KOL/2025

PRAMOD LAKRA, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALRAMPUR CHINI MILLS LTD , KOLKATA

In the result all the four appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1081/KOL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, &For Respondent: Shri Praveen Kishore, DR
Section 80Section 92C

delay of filing the appeals is hereby condoned. 03. The facts and circumstances in these appeals are identical, hence, for the sake of convenience and brevity, these are decided and disposed ITA No.1079 to 1082/KOL/2025 Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd.; A.Ys. 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21 & 2021-22 of together. First of all we will take ITA no. 1079/KOL/2025

PRAMOD LAKRA, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALRAMPUR CHINI MILLS LTD , KOLKATA

In the result all the four appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1082/KOL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

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

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, &For Respondent: Shri Praveen Kishore, DR
Section 80Section 92C

delay of filing the appeals is hereby condoned. 03. The facts and circumstances in these appeals are identical, hence, for the sake of convenience and brevity, these are decided and disposed ITA No.1079 to 1082/KOL/2025 Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd.; A.Ys. 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21 & 2021-22 of together. First of all we will take ITA no. 1079/KOL/2025

DEEPAK SWITCH GEARS PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. PCIT, ASANSOL, ASANSOL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 809/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.809/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Deepak Switch Gears Pvt. Ltd….…......................…...……………....Appellant 48/6, Suman Villa, 2Nd Floor, 155, Jessore Road, Kolkata-700055. [Pan: Aabcd1131H] Vs. Pcit, Asansol….....….........................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri A. K. Tibrewal, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 08, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 07, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Revision Order Dated 30.12.2022 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Pr. Cit’] Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In This Appeal Has Agitated Against The Action Of The Pr. Cit In Exercising His Revision Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Act & Thereby Directing The Assessing Officer To Frame The Assessment Afresh. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That The Appeal Is Time-Barred By 158 Days. A Separate Application Of Condonation Of Delay Has Been Filed, Wherein, It Has Been Pleaded That After Receipt Of The Impugned Order Of The Pr. Cit, The Assessee, Through Its Director, Shri Deep Kishan Saraf, Immediately Approached One Shri Pawan Kumar Agarwal, Chartered

Section 253Section 263Section 5

Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice vide Shakuntala Devi lain 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

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

condone the delay and admit these cross objections filed by assessee. 25. After giving our thoughtful consideration to the submissions of the parties and perusing the judicial decisions relied upon by the ld. Counsel for the assessee. We note that the education cess is allowable for deduction u/s 37(1) of the Act. For this, we rely on the judgment

SUDHA DHOOT,KOLKATA vs. AO WARD 40 (4), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 127/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Ram Avtar Dhoot, CAFor Respondent: Smt Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT, DR
Section 143(1)Section 21Section 250

delay in filing the appeal is being condoned as the assessee seemed to have erred in following the procedure as per the letter dated 07.02.2024. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. That the Ld. Assessing Officer has disallowed the amount of Brought Forward losses amounting to Rs.43,97,351/- mentioning that the return

PRANAB KANYA SANGHA,NORTH TWNETY FOUR PARGANAS vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), , KOLKATA

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

ITA 704/KOL/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Oct 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2025-26 Pranab Kanya Sangha………….……………………….……….……….……Appellant Barasat-I, Hridaypur, West Bengal-700127.. [Pan: Aaatp4743M] Vs. Cit(Exemption), Kolkata………………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Ashok Mukherjee, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sanat Kr. Raha, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 17, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 07, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.08.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(E)’] Rejecting The Application Filed In Form 10Ab For Final Approval As Per The Provisions Of Section 80G(5)(Iii) Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)Section 80G(5)(iv)

section 80(5) of the Act and considering the various judicial pronouncements and also the condonation petition filed by the assessee, we condone the delay

COMMERCIAL HOUSE PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 6(1), KOLKATA

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 601/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 249Section 253Section 270ASection 3Section 5

Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice vide Shakuntala Devi lain 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