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.

8 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 80Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Jaipur28Lucknow12Bangalore12Mumbai12Pune8Kolkata8Indore7Varanasi6Chennai6Raipur4Hyderabad4Ahmedabad3Delhi3Surat3Nagpur2Visakhapatnam2Patna1Chandigarh1Amritsar1SC1Allahabad1Cochin1Jodhpur1Panaji1

Key Topics

Section 80P8Section 806Addition to Income6Section 685Deduction5Condonation of Delay5Section 1484Section 14A4Section 143(1)

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

ACIT, CC-3(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. SNOWTEX INVESTMENT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

3
Section 1443
Section 80C3
Limitation/Time-bar3
ITA 1799/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.) Asstt. Year : 2012-13 A.C.I.T, Cc-3(2), Kolkata Vs M/S. Snowtex Investment Ltd. Pan: Aaecs 0334C (Assessee/Department) (Respondent/Assessee)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Sr. Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT, ld.DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 3. The grievances raised by the Revenue are as follows:- 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law to hold that disallowance under section 14A read with rule 8D will not apply where no exempt income is received

ASHOK CHAURASIA,PARBATIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, HALDIA

Appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 358/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 250Section 44ASection 68

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Bench raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. That the Assessing Officer has taken income on excess deposit as income i.e. (2,22,81,659-1,83,02,190)-Rs.39,52,944 during the Previous year where the assessee

RAJU SAHA,BARASAT, TWENTY FOUR PARGANAS NORTH vs. DCIT/ACIT, CIRCLE - 61,, KOLKATA

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

ITA 2056/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 2056/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Raju Saha,……………………………….……...……Appellant Swapanapuri, Duttapukur Hatkhola, Barasat, 24-Parganas (N), Kolkata-743248, West Bengal [Pan:Awops1579E] -Vs.- Dcit/Acit,…………………………………….……..Respondent Circle-61, Kolkata, Office Of The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bamboo Villa, 169, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata-700014

Section 10Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 192Section 270ASection 80C

delay is condoned. 3. Facts in brief are that the appellant-assessee made substantial financial transactions in the form of receipt of salary income i.e. amounting to Rs.63,81,187/- received from Reliance Telecom Ltd., Ticker Plant Ltd., Vodafone Mobuile Ltd. and Dishnet Wireless Ltd., which is above the basic exemption chargeable to tax as salaried employee. On the basis

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

PULAK SAMANTA,PURBA BARDHAMAN vs. ITO, WARD 2(3), , BURDWAN

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

ITA 1027/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Nov 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm & Shri Sanjay Awasthi, Am Shri Pulak Samanta Ito, Ward 2(3), Burdwan S/O Sushil Samanta, Kharga Aaykar Bhawan Poorva, Karanda, P.S. Memari, Dist. Kachari Road, Court Compound, Vs. Purba Bardhaman, Pin-713149 Burdwan-713101, West Bengal West Bengal (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Benps8092A Assessee By : Shri Suvo Chakroborthy, Ar Revenue By : Shri Monalisha Pal Mukherjee, Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri Suvo Chakroborthy, ARFor Respondent: Shri Monalisha Pal Mukherjee, DR
Section 115BSection 68

80C (₹1,50,000) and 80TTA (₹1,865). 03. During the assessment, the Assessing Officer noticed substantial cash deposits made in the assessee’s bank accounts, including deposits during the demonetization period (09.11.2016 to 30.12.2016). The assessee explained that, being an agent of Bajaj Finance Ltd., he collected instalments and due amounts from customers and deposited the same into

SK. SAIFUL ALI,HALDIA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 27(1), HALDIA, HALDIA

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

ITA 150/KOL/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jun 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No. 150/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Sk. Saiful Ali,.........................................Appellant Raj Stile, Khajanchak, Durgachak, Haldia, Purba Medinipur-721602 [Pan: Akipa2468E] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,.................................Respondent Ward-27(1), Haldia, Durgachak, Haldia, Purna Medinipur-721602 Appearances By: Shri Soumitra Choudhry, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 12, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 13, 2023 O R D E R

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 80C

section 144 of the Act on 26.12.2017 framed by ld. ITO, Ward-27(1), Haldia. 2. The Registry has pointed out that the appeal is time- barred by 19 days. In order to explain the delay, the assessee has filed COD along with the affidavit mentioning the reason for the delay in filing the instant appeal that the same

SANDEEP MODI,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 425/KOL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 154

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “(i) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) had erred both in law and on facts in confirming the order by Assessing Officer and making an addition of Rs.10,00,000/- being the premium component