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.

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

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai405Chennai348Kolkata184Delhi165Ahmedabad148Bangalore144Jaipur107Karnataka100Hyderabad90Pune77Calcutta66Surat49Chandigarh48Indore48Lucknow43Nagpur34Panaji31Cuttack23Patna22Rajkot20Visakhapatnam19Cochin16Raipur16Agra11Ranchi9Varanasi9SC7Guwahati7Amritsar6Jodhpur4Dehradun3Telangana3Jabalpur3Allahabad1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Andhra Pradesh1Orissa1

Key Topics

Section 2639Section 250(6)9Section 143(3)5Long Term Capital Gains5Addition to Income5Section 54B3Deduction3Condonation of Delay3Disallowance

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 (2), MUKTSAR vs. AJAIB SINGH, VILLAGE BHARU

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 354/ASR/2024[2012]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Jun 2025

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 354/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 250Section 54B

condone the delay and admit the appeal to be heard on merits. 3. The grounds of appeal in Form No. 36 are as under: “(i) On the facts & circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting addition of Rs.3,68,15,000/- made on account of long term capital gain

SHRI AMRITPAL SINGH (PROP),JALANDHAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 1, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

3
Section 54D2
Section 1442
ITA 425/ASR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 110Section 263Section 54D

delay for 14 days is condoned. 3. The assessee has taken the following grounds: “1. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by worthy PCIT -1 is arbitrary, whimsical, bad in law and deserves to be quashed. 2. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order

SHRI AMAR NATH CHOUDHARY,JAMMU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMMU

ITA 35/ASR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar03 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Joginder Singh, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ravinder Mittal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

delay is condoned and appeals are admitted on merits. 6. There is sole issue challenged by the appellant regarding confirmation of 10 % of the addition made by AO in respect of the sale of Flats and 10 % as against the 20% disallowance by AO in respect of the commercial open space on presumption and assumptions on identical facts

SHRI AMAR NATH CHOUDHARY,JAMMU vs. DEPUTY CMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMMU

ITA 36/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar03 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Joginder Singh, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ravinder Mittal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

delay is condoned and appeals are admitted on merits. 6. There is sole issue challenged by the appellant regarding confirmation of 10 % of the addition made by AO in respect of the sale of Flats and 10 % as against the 20% disallowance by AO in respect of the commercial open space on presumption and assumptions on identical facts

SHRI AMAR NATH CHOUDHARY,JAMMU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRA L CIRCLE, JAMMU

ITA 34/ASR/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar02 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Joginder Singh, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ravinder Mittal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

delay is condoned and appeals are admitted on merits. 6. There is sole issue challenged by the appellant regarding confirmation of 10 % of the addition made by AO in respect of the sale of Flats and 10 % as against the 20% disallowance by AO in respect of the commercial open space on presumption and assumptions on identical facts

SHRI RAJINDER KUMAR,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 (3), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 262/ASR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar19 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.262/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 144Section 250o

delay for 139 days is condoned. 3. Brief fact of the case is that the assessment was completed u/s 144 with addition amount of Rs.12,13,420/- related long term capital gain