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.

12 results for “condonation of delay”+ Long Term Capital Gainsclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai405Chennai348Kolkata184Delhi165Ahmedabad152Bangalore144Hyderabad112Jaipur107Karnataka100Pune82Calcutta66Chandigarh50Surat50Indore48Lucknow45Nagpur34Panaji32Cuttack27Patna22Visakhapatnam21Rajkot20Raipur18Cochin16Agra12Varanasi10Ranchi9SC7Guwahati7Amritsar6Jabalpur5Jodhpur4Dehradun3Telangana3A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Orissa1Andhra Pradesh1Allahabad1

Key Topics

Section 14712Long Term Capital Gains10Section 1449Section 143(1)9Addition to Income9Section 2508Section 1488Section 54B8Section 234C7

AARA AGRO PVT. LTD.,AGRA vs. DY.CIT., CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AGRA

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 54/AGR/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra23 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenalt.A No. 54/Agr/2021 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Vs. Cit Circle-2 (1)(1) Agra Agro Private Limited Agra U.P. Anjana Cinema, 3/2 D.M.G. Road Agra U.P. 282007 Pan: Aagca8595F (Revenue) (Assessee)

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 207Section 234BSection 234C

long term capital gains worked out on sale of land and short term capital gains worked out on sale of depreciable assets. As the book profit was more than normal income, the tax was calculated under the LT.A No. 54/AGR/2021 19 provisions of section 115JB on the book profit of Rs.35,05,03,102/-which inter alia included profit

Capital Gains7
Section 142(1)6
Penalty6

NEETA AGARWAL,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 2(1)(2), AGRA, AGRA

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

ITA 213/AGR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra04 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing) Neeta Agarwal, Vs. Income Tax Officer, E-23, New Agra, Agra Ward-2(1)(2), Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaxpa0936E Assessee By : Shri Amit Goyal, Adv Shri Nitin Goyal, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/12/2025

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goyal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 234BSection 271(1)Section 68Section 69C

condone the delay in the interest of substantial justice and admit the appeal of the Assessee for adjudication. 3. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal before us:- Neeta Agarwal “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in confirming

PRIYAVRAT SHARMA,AGRA vs. ITO WARD 1(1)(2), AGRA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 355/AGR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Agra26 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 50C

delay caused in filing this second appeal stands condoned. 3. The brief facts state that the appellant assessee filed his return of Income for the year under consideration, declaring total Income at Rs. 5,24,040/- and worked out long term capital gain/loss of (-) 2,72,271/- on sale of two plots of land as under. 1) Land 03/12/2018 Value

BHAGVAN DAS L/H SHRI GAURI SHANKER,FIROZABAD vs. ITO WARD 2(2)(1), FIROZABAD

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 259/AGR/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Agra30 Oct 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 54B

delay of about 263 days in both the above said appeals stand condoned. ITA No. 260/Agr/2025: 2 | P a g e ITA No. 260 & 259/Agr/2025 4. Briefly stating, the facts are that the assessee did not file any return of income for the year under consideration. Based on the documents/information gathered from AIR filer, the Assessing Officer noticed that during

BHAGVAN DAS L/H SHRI GAURI SHANKER,FIROZABAD vs. ITO WARD 2(2)1, FIROZABAD

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 260/AGR/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Agra30 Oct 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 54B

delay of about 263 days in both the above said appeals stand condoned. ITA No. 260/Agr/2025: 2 | P a g e ITA No. 260 & 259/Agr/2025 4. Briefly stating, the facts are that the assessee did not file any return of income for the year under consideration. Based on the documents/information gathered from AIR filer, the Assessing Officer noticed that during

RAJVEER SINGH,MEHRAUNI vs. ITO, LALITPUR

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

ITA 77/AGR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra03 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2012-13]

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 50C

Long Term Capital Gains. 4. Aggrieved with the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine under the provisions of 249(3) r.w.s. 250 of the Act by not condoning the delay

SANJANA GUPTA,JHANSI vs. ITO-WARD-2(3)(1) JHANSI, JHANSI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 433/AGR/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Agra21 Jan 2026AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshsanjana Gupta, Vs. Ito, 130, Gudri Bazar, Jhansi Ward-2(3)(1), Jhansi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Awbpg1536E Assessee By : Smt Prathna Jalan, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 21/01/2026 O R D E R

For Appellant: Smt Prathna Jalan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 254Section 50C(2)

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the assessee for adjudication. 3. Though the assessee has raised several grounds before me, the only effective issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld JCIT(A) was justified in confirming the addition made on account of differential Sanjana Gupta consideration under the head “Capital Gains

BRIJRAJ KUMAR PANDEY,ETAWAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 2(2)(5) ETAWAH, ETAWAH

In the result, all the three appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 135/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)Section 269SSection 271DSection 272A(1)(d)

long term capital gains on sale of property, by the Assessing Officer, vide separate penalty orders dated 16.09.2022, 28.09.2022 and assessment order dated 25.03.2022 passed u/s. 272A(1)(d), sec. 271D and sec. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act respectively. 2. Perused the records and heard the Id. Authorized Representative for the assessee and the Id. Departmental representative

BRIJRAJ KUMAR PANDEY,ETAWAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 2(2)(5) ETAWAH, ETAWAH

In the result, all the three appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 137/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)Section 269SSection 271DSection 272A(1)(d)

long term capital gains on sale of property, by the Assessing Officer, vide separate penalty orders dated 16.09.2022, 28.09.2022 and assessment order dated 25.03.2022 passed u/s. 272A(1)(d), sec. 271D and sec. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act respectively. 2. Perused the records and heard the Id. Authorized Representative for the assessee and the Id. Departmental representative

BRIJRAJ KUMAR PANDEY,ETAWAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 2(2)(5) ETAWAH, ETAWAH

In the result, all the three appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 136/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)Section 269SSection 271DSection 272A(1)(d)

long term capital gains on sale of property, by the Assessing Officer, vide separate penalty orders dated 16.09.2022, 28.09.2022 and assessment order dated 25.03.2022 passed u/s. 272A(1)(d), sec. 271D and sec. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act respectively. 2. Perused the records and heard the Id. Authorized Representative for the assessee and the Id. Departmental representative

GANGADHAR,ALIAGRH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ALIGARH

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 199/AGR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

condone the delay. 3. Brief facts state that the assessee did not file return of income for A.Y. 2012-13. According to the information available with the department, the appellant was found to have sold immovable property for Rs.1,21,36,800/-, stamp value of which, according to the government valuation, was Rs.93,36,800/-. Case was reopened

AKHLESH KUMAR TIWARI,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AGRA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 370/AGR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra26 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 54F

long-term capital gain of Rs.7,33,457/-, claiming its deduction u/s. 54F of the Act on the ground that the assessee had invested Rs.25,85,000/- in purchase of new residential property. Case was reopened u/s. 147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act, in response to which the assessee filed return of income