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.

244 results for “depreciation”+ Condonation of Delayclear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai453Mumbai391Delhi270Kolkata244Bangalore136Hyderabad80Pune68Chandigarh59Ahmedabad56Jaipur51Amritsar44Indore34Cuttack34Lucknow26Surat23Cochin19Karnataka16SC14Raipur13Rajkot11Visakhapatnam9Jodhpur8Guwahati8Patna8Nagpur7Allahabad6Calcutta6Kerala2Panaji2Jabalpur2Varanasi2Dehradun1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Telangana1Agra1Ranchi1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)74Section 25054Disallowance51Depreciation48Addition to Income48Section 14A37Section 43B36Limitation/Time-bar34Section 26333Condonation of Delay

M/S B.N. DUTTA,JAMSHEDPUR vs. DCIT, CIR. 2, DURGAPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 705/KOL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.705/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S B. N. Dutta ….…………………………………………………..………….……Appellant Head Office: 518, G Road, Sonari West Layout, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand – 831011. [Pan: Aadfb0648J] Vs. Dcit, Circle-2, Durgapur……..……....….….. ……………….........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri D. Khasnobis, Ca & None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri H. Robindro Singh, Addl. Cit - Dr & None Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 05, 2025 & December 17, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 17, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 13.02.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Indore [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Partnership Firm & Engaged In The Business Of Civil Construction & Maintenance Of Civil Structures Inside Stell Plants. For The Assessment Year 2011-12, The Assessee Filed Its Return On 30.09.2011 By Declaring Total Income Of Rs.36,58,080/- & Total Tax & Cess Liability Of Rs.11,30,347/- Was Discharged In Full Resulting In A Refund Of Rs.12,520/-. The Return Of The Assessee Was Processed By The Cpc U/S 143(1) Of The Act On 27.01.2012. The Assessee Did Not Receive Any Information From The Cpc Either Directly By Way Of Service Of Physical Copy Of The Same Or From The Then Authorised Representative Namely Mr. S. N. Gupta. Due To Non-Receipt Of

Section 143(1)Section 249(3)Section 250

Showing 1–20 of 244 · Page 1 of 13

...
33
Section 115J32
Deduction32

depreciation claimed in the return. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the CPC, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) along with an application for condonation of delay

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

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

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 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. 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

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. 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 - 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

D.C.I.T CIR - 2,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S AMRI HOSPITAL LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose and that of assessee’s CO is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 807/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 115JSection 143(3)

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 5. The inter-connected issue raised by assessee in its CO is whether Ld. CIT(A) is justified in applying the provisions of Sec. 115JB of the Act though the assessee has declared loss in its income return under the normal provision of the Act. 6. At the outset

NANDILAL RUNGTA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC-V, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1319/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Mar 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. S. Biswas, JCIT
Section 10Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 263

condone the delay in filing of appeals by the assessee in ITA No. 1317/Kol/2016 and ITA No. 1319/Kol/2016 and admit those appeals for adjudication. 6 ITA Nos.1317-1320/Kol/2016 Mukund Rungta & Nandlal Rungta.., AY 2010-11 3. The primary facts which triggered the revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act by the ld CIT are as follows :- (a) The assessee

MUKUND RUNGTA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC-V, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1317/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Mar 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. S. Biswas, JCIT
Section 10Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 263

condone the delay in filing of appeals by the assessee in ITA No. 1317/Kol/2016 and ITA No. 1319/Kol/2016 and admit those appeals for adjudication. 6 ITA Nos.1317-1320/Kol/2016 Mukund Rungta & Nandlal Rungta.., AY 2010-11 3. The primary facts which triggered the revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act by the ld CIT are as follows :- (a) The assessee

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

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

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

condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal on merit. 8 Commercial House Pvt. Limited 9. The substantial grievance of the assessee is that ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.13,33,668/-. The finding of the ld. Assessing Officer is not very specific. Therefore, for the appreciation of facts, we take note

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1949/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 250Section 253Section 270A

delay of 250 days in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merit. The appellant has raised four grounds of appeal against the levy of penalty of Rs.90,37,276/- u/s.270A of the Act, 1961. The A.O. has levied the penalty in this case stating that addition of Rs.5,10,82,386/- as disallowance

ITO, WARD - 1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ATN INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 1531/KOL/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Oct 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri Rajat Kr. Kureel, JCIT, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Miraj D. Shah, AR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 73

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the revenue for adjudication. 8. The only issue to be decided in this appeal of the revenue is as to whether the ld CITA is justified in deleting the disallowance of depreciation

A.K. PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,PURBA MEDINIPUR vs. I.T.O., WARD - 27(3), , HALDIA

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

ITA 2498/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 May 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 2498/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 A.K. Properties Pvt. Limited,………….…………Appellant Vill. Kalikakhali, P.O. + P.S. Math Cahndipur, Tamluk, Purba Medinipur-721659, West Bengal [Pan:Aagca4016P] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………….…………...Respondent Ward-27(3), Haldia, Income Tax Office, Basudebpur, Talpukur, Khanjanchak, Haldia, Purba Medinipur-721101, W.B. Appearances By: Shri Anand Sen, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri L.N. Dash, Addl. Cit(D.R.), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: March 12, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: May 29, 2025 O R D E R

Section 142Section 143(2)Section 69A

depreciation charges of Rs.16,142/-, interest on income tax return amounting to Rs.1,13,696/-, various expenditures of Rs.29,27,941/- and subscription & donation of Rs.27,600/-, which were remained unexplained. After considering 2 A.K. Properties Pvt. Limited the submissions made by the assessee, the ld. Assessing Officer concluded that the transactions made by the appellant were sham transactions

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. CENTURY ENKA LTD., KOLKATA

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

ITA 665/KOL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 May 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Akash Mansinka, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Niraj Kumar, CIT, DR & Shri A. K. Sinha, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 43B

condone the delay and admit the revenue’s appeal for hearing. 3. The only issue to be decided in this appeal of revenue is that with regard to the allowance of leave encashment of Rs.1,47,66,197/-. 4. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) had allowed

CENTURY ENKA LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 6, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 335/KOL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 May 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Akash Mansinka, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Niraj Kumar, CIT, DR & Shri A. K. Sinha, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 43B

condone the delay and admit the revenue’s appeal for hearing. 3. The only issue to be decided in this appeal of revenue is that with regard to the allowance of leave encashment of Rs.1,47,66,197/-. 4. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) had allowed

DCIT, CIR-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) LTD., 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 529/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