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.

660 results for “capital gains”+ Condonation of Delayclear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai660Mumbai651Kolkata384Delhi356Ahmedabad272Hyderabad271Bangalore262Pune219Jaipur216Chandigarh167Visakhapatnam115Karnataka105Indore103Surat87Calcutta76Lucknow65Panaji65Nagpur54Cuttack44Patna43Cochin42Rajkot31Agra31Raipur26Amritsar23Jodhpur15SC13Jabalpur13Varanasi10Allahabad9Ranchi9Dehradun8Guwahati7Telangana5A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Andhra Pradesh1Orissa1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)50Addition to Income43Condonation of Delay35Section 14731Capital Gains28Section 14827Section 14A25Long Term Capital Gains18Section 1116Section 153A

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON-CORPORATE CIRCLE 7(1), CHENNAI vs. VELLORE SUBRAMANIAN SARAVANAN, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Re

ITA 1132/CHNY/2023[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Mar 2025

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 54F

Capital Gains. (The value of the land gifted was Rs.98,12,720/ The value of the land gifted was Rs.98,12,720/-) 4. At the outset, it is noted that the cross set, it is noted that the cross-objection objection (CO) has been filed by the assessee after a delay of filed by the assessee after a delay

ARTHI BALIGA,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NFAC, , DELHI

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

ITA 1559/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: Disposed

Showing 1–20 of 660 · Page 1 of 33

...
16
Deduction16
Disallowance15
ITAT Chennai
28 Feb 2025
AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1559/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Arthi Baliga, Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of No. 15, Flat No. 3-C, Coral Woods Income Tax, Chennai-4, Apartment, Sri Ram Nagar, South Chennai. Street, Alwarpet, Chennai 600 018. [Pan:Bkjpb5416P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ravi Kannan, Advocate & Shri Varun Ranganathan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 05.12.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.03.2024 Passed By The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai-4, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Kannan, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

delay is condoned and admitted the appeal for adjudication. 3. The assessee raised 6 grounds of appeal amongst which, the only issue emanates for our consideration as to whether the ld. PCIT is justified in setting aside the assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act in the given facts and circumstances

H.NARAYANLAL,VELLORE vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1315/CHNY/2017[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jul 2018AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. M. Sreenivasa Rao, CIT-DR
Section 131

capital and taxing the creditors was Himalayan blunder committed by the department after summoning and recording the statement from them and thus rankles my heart on account of brooding injustice done by the department. 11. I invite your attention that the supreme court held that manifest illegality cannot sustained on account of laches ( Justice Fathima Bevi SC). 12 The appellant

H.NARAYANLAL,VELLORE vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1313/CHNY/2017[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jul 2018AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. M. Sreenivasa Rao, CIT-DR
Section 131

capital and taxing the creditors was Himalayan blunder committed by the department after summoning and recording the statement from them and thus rankles my heart on account of brooding injustice done by the department. 11. I invite your attention that the supreme court held that manifest illegality cannot sustained on account of laches ( Justice Fathima Bevi SC). 12 The appellant

H.NARAYANLAL,VELLORE vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1316/CHNY/2017[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jul 2018AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. M. Sreenivasa Rao, CIT-DR
Section 131

capital and taxing the creditors was Himalayan blunder committed by the department after summoning and recording the statement from them and thus rankles my heart on account of brooding injustice done by the department. 11. I invite your attention that the supreme court held that manifest illegality cannot sustained on account of laches ( Justice Fathima Bevi SC). 12 The appellant

H.NARAYANLAL,VELLORE vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1317/CHNY/2017[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jul 2018AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. M. Sreenivasa Rao, CIT-DR
Section 131

capital and taxing the creditors was Himalayan blunder committed by the department after summoning and recording the statement from them and thus rankles my heart on account of brooding injustice done by the department. 11. I invite your attention that the supreme court held that manifest illegality cannot sustained on account of laches ( Justice Fathima Bevi SC). 12 The appellant

H.NARAYANLAL,VELLORE vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1319/CHNY/2017[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jul 2018AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. M. Sreenivasa Rao, CIT-DR
Section 131

capital and taxing the creditors was Himalayan blunder committed by the department after summoning and recording the statement from them and thus rankles my heart on account of brooding injustice done by the department. 11. I invite your attention that the supreme court held that manifest illegality cannot sustained on account of laches ( Justice Fathima Bevi SC). 12 The appellant

H.NARAYANLAL,VELLORE vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1318/CHNY/2017[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jul 2018AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. M. Sreenivasa Rao, CIT-DR
Section 131

capital and taxing the creditors was Himalayan blunder committed by the department after summoning and recording the statement from them and thus rankles my heart on account of brooding injustice done by the department. 11. I invite your attention that the supreme court held that manifest illegality cannot sustained on account of laches ( Justice Fathima Bevi SC). 12 The appellant

H.NARAYANLAL,VELLORE vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1314/CHNY/2017[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jul 2018AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. M. Sreenivasa Rao, CIT-DR
Section 131

capital and taxing the creditors was Himalayan blunder committed by the department after summoning and recording the statement from them and thus rankles my heart on account of brooding injustice done by the department. 11. I invite your attention that the supreme court held that manifest illegality cannot sustained on account of laches ( Justice Fathima Bevi SC). 12 The appellant

ARTHUR JAGARAJ DEVAPRAGASAM,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 8(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 710/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:710/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Arthur Jagaraj Devapragasam, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.C-5, Marble Arch Apartments, Vs. Income Tax, No.2 Valliammal Street, Non-Corporate Circle-8(1) Vepery, Chennai-600 007. Chennai. [Pan: Acypa-9529-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. R.Vijayaraghavan, Advocate (Virtual) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, J.C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24.07.2025

For Appellant: Shri. R.Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, J.C.I.T
Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54(2)

condone delay in filing of appeal and admit the appeal filed by the assessee for adjudication. 3. The grounds raised by the assessee are as follows: 1) The order of the CIT(A), NFAC is contrary to the law facts and circumstances of the case. 2) The NFAC erred in confirming the taxable long term capital gains

SRI K.SRIKANTH,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

ITA 1015/CHNY/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2020AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

gain since it was an amount paid for removing the encumbrance on the sale of shares. I am unable to agree with the contentions of the appellant. In this case, the appellant as a guarantor of the loan was legally bound to repay the loan taken by the borrower in case borrower was unable to pay back the amount. When

SRI K.SRIKANTH,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

ITA 1016/CHNY/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2020AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

gain since it was an amount paid for removing the encumbrance on the sale of shares. I am unable to agree with the contentions of the appellant. In this case, the appellant as a guarantor of the loan was legally bound to repay the loan taken by the borrower in case borrower was unable to pay back the amount. When

SHRI K.SRIKANTH,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

ITA 307/CHNY/2010[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2020AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

gain since it was an amount paid for removing the encumbrance on the sale of shares. I am unable to agree with the contentions of the appellant. In this case, the appellant as a guarantor of the loan was legally bound to repay the loan taken by the borrower in case borrower was unable to pay back the amount. When

ACIT,, CHENNAI vs. SRI. K.SRIKANTH,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

ITA 1324/CHNY/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2020AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

gain since it was an amount paid for removing the encumbrance on the sale of shares. I am unable to agree with the contentions of the appellant. In this case, the appellant as a guarantor of the loan was legally bound to repay the loan taken by the borrower in case borrower was unable to pay back the amount. When

P. ANANTHRAM,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, NON-CORPORATE CIRCLE-2, COMBATORE MAIN BUILDING, 63, RACE COURSE ROAD, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 155/CHNY/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.155/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2016-17 P. Ananth Ram, The Asst. Commissioner Of 36, West Venkataswamy Road, Vs. Income Tax, R.S. Puram, Non Corporate Circle-2, Coimbtore – 641 002. Coimbatore. [Pan: Anxpa-6262-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri S. Marudhu Pandyan, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.12.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.12.2022

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Marudhu Pandyan, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54

condone the delay and admit the appeal. 3. The only issue in this appeal of assessee is as regards to the order of PCIT revising the assessment which is already been examined by the A.O during the course of assessment proceedings i.e., deduction claimed by the assessee on long term capital loss/gain. :- 3 -: For this, the assessee has raised various

PENTA MEDIA GRAPHICS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

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

ITA 1402/CHNY/2015[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 May 2023AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1402/Chny/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2000-01 M/S. Penta Media Graphics Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of ‘Taurus’, No. 25, First Main Road, Vs. Income Tax, Media Circle I, Room No. 311, 3Rd Floor, New Block, United India Colony, Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024. 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aaacp1647B] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri G. Baskar, Advocate & : Smt. Sree Valli Lakshmi, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By None [Dept. Letter Submission] : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 12.04.2023 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.05.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai Dated 30.03.2015 Passed Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

condone 2 I.T.A. No. 1402/Chny/2015 the delay in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under: 1. The Order of the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) dated 30.03.2015, confirming the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act of an amount of Rs.13

ABUSHA INVESTMENT & MANAGEMENT SERVICES LLP,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 7(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3417/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Mr.Bhabagrahi Dash, CAFor Respondent: Mr.Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 2(47)Section 250Section 45(1)Section 45(4)

condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the appeal. 3. Grounds raised by the assessee are as under: 1. The order of Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to the law and the facts and circumstance of the case. 2.1 The Ld. CIT(A) had grossly erred in law and on facts by passing the impugned order without giving a sufficient

ITO (EXEMPTIONS), CHENNAI vs. LIFE HELP CENTRE FOR THE HANDICAPPED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 240/CHNY/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Sreekanth, JCITFor Respondent: Shri V. Shankar, CA
Section 11

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted. 3.0 All the grounds of appeal are related to the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of transfer of property. During the course of proceedings, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee had entered in to an exchange agreement vide exchange deed dated 03/09/2010 in Doc. No.5392/2010 with M/s.Eskay Designs

B.SUNDARARAJAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 95/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Sept 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 431/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2008-09 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Shri B. Sundararajan, Income Tax, No. 34, Umapathy Street, Non Corporate Circle 18(1), West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aasps3969C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 95/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2008-09 Shri B. Sundararajan, The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 34, Umapathy Street, Vs. Income Tax, West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033. Non Corporate Circle 18(1), Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Department By : Mrs. V.S. Sreelekha, Cit Assessee By Shri N. Arjunraj, Ca For : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.09.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.09.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Both The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue As Well As Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 15, Chennai, Dated 31.10.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2

For Respondent: Mrs. V.S. Sreelekha, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54F

delay of one day in filing of the appeal stands condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. When the appeals were taken up for hearing, at the outset, by filing copy of the order of the Tribunal in the case of ITO v. Smt. B. Vathsala in I.T.A. No. 1112/Chny/2019 dated 27.12.2019 for the assessment year

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 18(1), CHENNAI vs. SHRI. B SUNDARAJAN, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 431/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Sept 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 431/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2008-09 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Shri B. Sundararajan, Income Tax, No. 34, Umapathy Street, Non Corporate Circle 18(1), West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aasps3969C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 95/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2008-09 Shri B. Sundararajan, The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 34, Umapathy Street, Vs. Income Tax, West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033. Non Corporate Circle 18(1), Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Department By : Mrs. V.S. Sreelekha, Cit Assessee By Shri N. Arjunraj, Ca For : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.09.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.09.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Both The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue As Well As Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 15, Chennai, Dated 31.10.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2

For Respondent: Mrs. V.S. Sreelekha, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54F

delay of one day in filing of the appeal stands condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. When the appeals were taken up for hearing, at the outset, by filing copy of the order of the Tribunal in the case of ITO v. Smt. B. Vathsala in I.T.A. No. 1112/Chny/2019 dated 27.12.2019 for the assessment year