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.

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

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai405Chennai348Kolkata184Delhi165Ahmedabad152Bangalore144Hyderabad112Jaipur107Karnataka100Pune82Calcutta66Chandigarh50Surat50Indore48Lucknow45Nagpur34Panaji32Cuttack27Patna22Visakhapatnam21Rajkot20Raipur18Cochin16Agra12Varanasi10Ranchi9SC7Guwahati7Amritsar6Jabalpur5Jodhpur4Dehradun3Telangana3A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Orissa1Andhra Pradesh1Allahabad1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)47Section 14835Addition to Income34Section 14731Condonation of Delay30Capital Gains26Long Term Capital Gains24Deduction24Section 54

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

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: Disposed

Showing 1–20 of 348 · Page 1 of 18

...
17
Section 271(1)(c)14
Section 14414
Section 50C14
ITAT Chennai
19 May 2020
AY 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

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

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

M/S APEX TRANSWORLD PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CC-1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 932/CHNY/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.932/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2011-12 V. M/S.Apex Transworld Pvt. Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner Of 38, 2Nd Main Road, Income Tax, R.A. Puram, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai-600 028. Chennai. [Pan: Aadca 7034 L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.K. Ramesh Babu, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Mr. Ar.V.Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.01.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.01.2023

For Respondent: Mr. AR.V.Sreenivasan
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

condone delay in filing appeal filed by the assessee. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The learned appellate authority has erred in considering the claim as fresh claim during the course of assessment. :: 3 :: 2. The learned appellate authority, has erred in considering the claim which is mistake apparent from the return filed and ought

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

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: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 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

SMT. MURALI VIDHYA,,NAGAPATTINAM vs. ITO, WARD-2,, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 610/CHNY/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 610/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Smt. Murali Vidhya, Income Tax Officer, No. 51, Subramaniyapuram, V. Ward -2, Mayiladuthurai, Kumbakonam – 612 001. Nagapattinam – 609 001. [Pan: Aohpv-4251-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 611/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri. Pondian Murali, Income Tax Officer, No. 51, Subramaniyapuram, V. Ward -2, Mayiladuthurai, Kumbakonam – 612 001. Nagapattinam – 609 001. [Pan: Bqbpm-8040-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10.01.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.01.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 50CSection 5O

condone delay in filing appeals filed by the both the assessee’s. 5. Both the assessee’s has more or less filed common grounds of appeals. Therefore, for the sake of brevity, grounds of appeal filed in ITA No. 610/Chny/2020 are reproduced as under: “1. The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 1, Trichy dated 11.03.2020 in I.T.A.No

SHRI PONDIAN MURALI,,NAGAPATTINAM vs. ITO, WARD - 2, , KUMBAKONAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 611/CHNY/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 610/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Smt. Murali Vidhya, Income Tax Officer, No. 51, Subramaniyapuram, V. Ward -2, Mayiladuthurai, Kumbakonam – 612 001. Nagapattinam – 609 001. [Pan: Aohpv-4251-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 611/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri. Pondian Murali, Income Tax Officer, No. 51, Subramaniyapuram, V. Ward -2, Mayiladuthurai, Kumbakonam – 612 001. Nagapattinam – 609 001. [Pan: Bqbpm-8040-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10.01.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.01.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 50CSection 5O

condone delay in filing appeals filed by the both the assessee’s. 5. Both the assessee’s has more or less filed common grounds of appeals. Therefore, for the sake of brevity, grounds of appeal filed in ITA No. 610/Chny/2020 are reproduced as under: “1. The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 1, Trichy dated 11.03.2020 in I.T.A.No

ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 14(3), CHENNAI vs. M.SURESH KUMAR, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1990/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I T.A. No. 1990/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 The Income Tax Officer, Shri M. Sureshkumar, Non Corporate Ward 14(3), 121, Vs. S/O Shri Mohan, Door No. 68-2, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Vallalar Street (Karikalan Street) , Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034. Adambakkam, Chennai 600 088. [Pan:Dshps8007K] (Appellant) (Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : None सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.10.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai Dated 26.03.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13. In This Appeal, Besides Challenging Condonation Of Delay, The Revenue Also Challenged That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Long Term Capital Gains.

For Appellant: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCITFor Respondent: None
Section 148Section 50C

condonation of delay, the Revenue also challenged that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of long term capital gains

ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 13(4), CHENNAI vs. P.GANSH KUMAR, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1984/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I T.A. No. 1984/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 The Income Tax Officer, Shri P. Ganesh Kumar, Old. No. 17, New No. 31, 3Rd Street, Non Corporate Ward 13(4), Vs. Chennai. Santhi Nagar, Chennai 600 088. [Pan:Arnpg6761G] (Appellant) (Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : None सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.10.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai Dated 26.03.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13. In This Appeal, Besides Challenging Condonation Of Delay, The Revenue Also Challenged That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Long Term Capital Gains.

For Appellant: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCITFor Respondent: None
Section 148Section 50C

condonation of delay, the Revenue also challenged that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of long term capital gains

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

SMT. M. MAGESWARI,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 10 (3),, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for both the

ITA 2200/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.2200 & 2201/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13) Mrs. Mageswari, Vs Income Tax Officer, 1, M.T.H.Road, Padi, Non-Corporate Ward-10(3), Chennai-600 050. Chennai. Pan: Anfpm 5901L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Suresh Periasamy,JCITFor Respondent: 02.03.2021
Section 133ASection 143(3)

Long Term Capital Gains the reasonable expenses incurred for buying lands and developing and other incidental expenses are to be allowed in arriving at the income. 8. Your appellant submits that the authorities below are not correct in adopting the funds transferred to the trust as the involved. 9. Your appellant submits that funds transferred are the amounts received from

SMT. M. MAGESWARI,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 10 (3),, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for both the

ITA 2201/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.2200 & 2201/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13) Mrs. Mageswari, Vs Income Tax Officer, 1, M.T.H.Road, Padi, Non-Corporate Ward-10(3), Chennai-600 050. Chennai. Pan: Anfpm 5901L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Suresh Periasamy,JCITFor Respondent: 02.03.2021
Section 133ASection 143(3)

Long Term Capital Gains the reasonable expenses incurred for buying lands and developing and other incidental expenses are to be allowed in arriving at the income. 8. Your appellant submits that the authorities below are not correct in adopting the funds transferred to the trust as the involved. 9. Your appellant submits that funds transferred are the amounts received from

MIRACLE OLYMERS INDIA LTD,PALAKKAD vs. PCIT-1, COIMBATORE

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee in I

ITA 518/CHNY/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A No.:519/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year 2015 – 2016 M/S. Miracle Reclaim Rubber The Principal Commissioner Of (Coimbatore) Private Limited, Vs. Income Tax – 1, No.13 / 679, Menonpara Road, Coimbatore – Annexe Building, New Industrial Development Area 63A, Race Course Road, (Nida), Kanjikode, Coimbatore – 641 018. Palakkad – 678 621. Pan : Aaecm 3230B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. B. Mohan, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Mr. ARV. Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 50C

Long Term Capital Gains and Short Term Capital Gains. For this, the PCIT recorded the fact in paragraph Nos.2.1 & 2.2 of his show- cause notice which reads as under: “2.1 On verification of records it is noticed that during the relevant Financial Year, you and your sister concern Mis. Miracle Polymers India Ltd sold a property (land and building

MIRACLEE RECLAIM RUBBER COIMBATORE (P) LTD.,PALAKKAD vs. PCIT-1, COIMBATORE

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee in I

ITA 519/CHNY/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A No.:519/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year 2015 – 2016 M/S. Miracle Reclaim Rubber The Principal Commissioner Of (Coimbatore) Private Limited, Vs. Income Tax – 1, No.13 / 679, Menonpara Road, Coimbatore – Annexe Building, New Industrial Development Area 63A, Race Course Road, (Nida), Kanjikode, Coimbatore – 641 018. Palakkad – 678 621. Pan : Aaecm 3230B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. B. Mohan, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Mr. ARV. Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 50C

Long Term Capital Gains and Short Term Capital Gains. For this, the PCIT recorded the fact in paragraph Nos.2.1 & 2.2 of his show- cause notice which reads as under: “2.1 On verification of records it is noticed that during the relevant Financial Year, you and your sister concern Mis. Miracle Polymers India Ltd sold a property (land and building

SHRI T.N. RAJAMOHAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assesse’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2540/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 54F

condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the First Appellate Authority considered the maintainability of the assessed Short Term Capital Gains for testing the new fresh claim for tax exemption. In the said case, the assessee offered the surplus from the sale of agricultural lands as Short Term Capital Gains and not claimed tax exemption by mistake. The fresh

PRAMILA PATEL,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 10 (3),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands

ITA 1827/CHNY/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1827/Chny/2019. "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2009-2010. Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Pramila Patel, No.27, Gnt Road, Non Corporate Ward 10(3) Puzhal, Chennai. Chennai 600 066. [Pan Aeipp 1044H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, IRS, JCIT
Section 148

Long Term Capital Gains which are exempt under section 10(38) of the IT Act. The appellant has claimed that the purchases were done on 18/612007 and the sale was done on 13/3/2009, 20/3/2009 and 25/3/2009. 5.10. As per the de-mat statements, the shares were credited to the appellant’s account only on 6/3/2009, 12/3/2009 and 19/3/2009

NEETA BOTHRA,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 9(3), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2508/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.2507 & 2508/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years:2012-13 & 2013-14) Vs The Income Tax Officer, Mrs. Neeta Bothra, 1/1, General Patters Road, Non-Corporate Ward-9(3) Chennai- 600 002. Chennai-6. Pan: Aaipb 0445J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.Suresh Periasamy,JCITFor Respondent: 14.07.2021
Section 10(38)Section 68

condonation of delay, we are of the considered view that reasons given by the assessee for not year 2012-13 is admitted for adjudication. 5. The assessee has, more or less filed common grounds of appeal for both assessment years, therefore, for the sake of brevity, grounds of appeal filed in ITA No.2507/Chny/2018 for assessment year 2012-13 are reproduced