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.

42 results for “capital gains”+ Condonation of Delayclear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai660Mumbai651Kolkata384Delhi356Ahmedabad270Hyderabad266Bangalore262Jaipur208Pune194Chandigarh133Visakhapatnam106Karnataka105Indore103Surat87Calcutta76Panaji64Lucknow63Nagpur54Cuttack42Patna40Cochin39Rajkot31Agra31Raipur24Amritsar22Jodhpur15SC13Jabalpur13Varanasi10Allahabad9Ranchi9Dehradun8Guwahati7Telangana5A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Andhra Pradesh1Orissa1

Key Topics

Section 26349Addition to Income21Limitation/Time-bar18Condonation of Delay16Disallowance15Section 3713Section 80I13Deduction13Section 26012Section 143(3)

LALIT KUMAR JALAN,JALAN PHARMACEUTICALS vs. ITO WARD-1(1), CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed with the directions

ITA 335/CTK/2024[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack17 Oct 2024AY 2018-19
Section 142(1)Section 50C

gains. This can be done only in the special circumstances where the valuation officer has delayed in submitting the report for indefinite time period such as in the instant case where after making refernce on 22.03.2021 by the AO till date i.e. after expiry of more than three and half year, no report is submitted. Nor the valuation officer

KELLA TRADING COMPANY (HUF),KORAPUT vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 92/CTK/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2016-17 Kella Kella Trading Trading Company Company Vs. Pr. Cit, Sambalpur Pr. Cit, Sambalpur (Huf), Kella Street, Jeypore, (Huf), Kella Street, Jeypore, Koraput-764001 764001 Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aamhk 1172 R (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.C.Sethi, Ar P.C.Sethi, Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit , Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 15/11 11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15/11 11/2022 O R D E R

Showing 1–20 of 42 · Page 1 of 3

10
Section 1479
Section 54F9
For Appellant: Shri P.C.Sethi, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54F

condone the delay of 113 days and admit the appeal for hearing. 5. It was submitted by ld AR that the assessee, an HUF had filed its return of income by disclosing the long term capital gains

LAXMINARAYAN DASH,BHUBANESWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 521/CTK/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack30 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalita No.521 /Ctk/2024 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Laxminarayan Das Laxminarayan Das Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- Income Tax Officer, Ward Plot No.575-C, C, 3(3), Bhubaneswar Hubaneswar Behera Sahi Nayapali Bhubaneswar, 751012 , 751012 Pan/Gir No. No.Accpd 0726 E (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By Assessee By : S/Shri P.K.Misahra & B.N.Behera B.N.Behera, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 30/12/20 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/12/20 024 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Dated Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Dated 22/03/2024 In Appeal No.Cit(A),Bhuban Cit(A),Bhubaneswar- 2/10236/2018-19 19 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Shri B.N.Behera B.N.Behera & P.K.Mishra, Ld Ars Appeared For Appeared For The Assessee & Shri S.C.Mohanty S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

For Appellant: S/Shri P.K.Misahra and B.N.BeheraFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr DR
Section 54F

capital gain, without examining the explanation offered and evidences adduced by the Appellant during course of assessment proceeding. The impugned disallowance of exemption/deduction claimed u/s 54F of the Act and addition of the same to the total income of the Appellant, being not sustainable in the eye of law is liable to be deleted in the interest of Justice

DCIT,CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/SD. SRB CONSULTANCY (P) LIMITED, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 11/CTK/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Dillip Kumar MohantyFor Respondent: Shri S.K.Mohapatra
Section 24Section 68Section 69Section 80Section 80I

Capital Gain, being just & proper be upheld & the departmental appeal on this ground be dismissed. 9. The Respondent crave leave to add/alter/amend any of the grounds of cross objection as urged either before or at the time of hearing. 10. That for these & other grounds if any that will be adduced at the time of hearing, it is prayed

ACIT,CIRCLE-2(1), CUTTACK vs. ASHWIN KUMAR AGARWALA, CUTTACK

In the result, appeals of the revenue and cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 303/CTK/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack27 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

condone the delay of 141 days in filing the appeals for the assessment year 2014-15 and admit the appeals for adjudication. 5. It was submitted by ld SR DR that there was only a single issue involved in all the appeals filed by the revenue, which was against the action of the ld CIT(A) in deleting the addition

ACIT,CIRCLE-2(1), , CUTTACK vs. SMT. SHASHI KALA AGARWALA, CUTTACK

In the result, appeals of the revenue and cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 301/CTK/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack27 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

condone the delay of 141 days in filing the appeals for the assessment year 2014-15 and admit the appeals for adjudication. 5. It was submitted by ld SR DR that there was only a single issue involved in all the appeals filed by the revenue, which was against the action of the ld CIT(A) in deleting the addition

ACIT, CIRCLE- 2(1), CUTTACK vs. SHRI SAURAV AGARWAL, CUTTACK

In the result, appeals of the revenue and cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 32/CTK/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack27 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

condone the delay of 141 days in filing the appeals for the assessment year 2014-15 and admit the appeals for adjudication. 5. It was submitted by ld SR DR that there was only a single issue involved in all the appeals filed by the revenue, which was against the action of the ld CIT(A) in deleting the addition

ACIT, CIRCLE- 2(1), CUTTACK vs. SMT. SHASHI KALA AGARWAL, CUTTACK

In the result, appeals of the revenue and cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 31/CTK/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack27 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

condone the delay of 141 days in filing the appeals for the assessment year 2014-15 and admit the appeals for adjudication. 5. It was submitted by ld SR DR that there was only a single issue involved in all the appeals filed by the revenue, which was against the action of the ld CIT(A) in deleting the addition

ACIT, CIRCLE- 2(1), CUTTACK vs. SHRI ASHWIN KUMAR AGARWAL, CUTTACK

In the result, appeals of the revenue and cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 29/CTK/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack27 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

condone the delay of 141 days in filing the appeals for the assessment year 2014-15 and admit the appeals for adjudication. 5. It was submitted by ld SR DR that there was only a single issue involved in all the appeals filed by the revenue, which was against the action of the ld CIT(A) in deleting the addition

ACIT,CIRCLE-2(1), CUTTACK vs. SHRI SANTOSH KUMAR AGARWALA, CUTTACK

In the result, appeals of the revenue and cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 302/CTK/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack27 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

condone the delay of 141 days in filing the appeals for the assessment year 2014-15 and admit the appeals for adjudication. 5. It was submitted by ld SR DR that there was only a single issue involved in all the appeals filed by the revenue, which was against the action of the ld CIT(A) in deleting the addition

ACIT, CIRCLE- 2(1), CUTTACK vs. SHRI SANTOSH KUMAR AGARWALA, CUTTACK

In the result, appeals of the revenue and cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 30/CTK/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack27 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

condone the delay of 141 days in filing the appeals for the assessment year 2014-15 and admit the appeals for adjudication. 5. It was submitted by ld SR DR that there was only a single issue involved in all the appeals filed by the revenue, which was against the action of the ld CIT(A) in deleting the addition

MUKESH AGARWAL,ROURKELA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD 1, ROURKELA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 631/CTK/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack04 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.631/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016) Mukesh Agarwal, Vs Ito Ward-1, Rourkela O-18, Civil Township, Rourkela-769004 Pan No. : Adipa 0575 D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ayush Agarwal, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 04/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04/02/2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, Jm :

For Appellant: Shri Ayush Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)

condone the delay of 12 days in filing the appeal and the appeal of the assessee is admitted for hearing. 3. At the outset, ld. AR submitted that the assessee purchased shares of Panchshul Marketing Ltd. from Overflow Merchyandise Pvt. Ltd. via a 2 SEBI-registered stockbroker and made payment through an account payee cheque. It was the submission that

PUJA AGARWAL,ROURKELA vs. ITO WARD 1, ROURKELA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 628/CTK/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack04 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.628/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016) Puja Agarwal, Vs Ito Ward-1, Rourkela O-18, Civil Township, Rourkela-769004 Pan No. : Agwpa 5744 K (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ayush Agarwal, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 04/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04/02/2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, Jm :

For Appellant: Shri Ayush Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)

condone the delay of 12 days in filing the appeal and the appeal of the assessee is admitted for hearing. 3. At the outset, ld. AR submitted that the assessee purchased shares of Panchshul Marketing Ltd. from Overflow Merchyandise Pvt. Ltd. via a 2 SEBI-registered stockbroker and made payment through an account payee cheque. It was the submission that

SANGRAM KESHARI SAMANTARAY,BHUBANESWAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, BHUBANESWAR

ITA 12/CTK/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Oct 2021AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri D.Parida/C.Parida, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

condone the delay of 224 days in filing the present appeal and the appeal is heard on merits. 4. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. That the order passed by the Learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Bhubaneswar u/s 263 of the LT. Act, 1961 is excessive, arbitrary and bad in law. 2. That

PARADIP PORT AUTHORITY,JAGATSINGHPUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), CUTTACK

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 208/CTK/2024[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 Sept 2024AY 2003-04
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 260Section 263

delay should be condoned. 5. Consequent upon the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa and after due consideration of the submission of the assessee, the total income of the assessee was computed as Rs.Nil after allowing the benefit of exemption u/s 11 of the Act for all the subject assessment years. Copy of the order dated

PARADIP PORT AUTHORITY,JAGATSINGHPUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE1(1), CUTTACK

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 210/CTK/2024[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 Sept 2024AY 2005-06
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 260Section 263

delay should be condoned. 5. Consequent upon the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa and after due consideration of the submission of the assessee, the total income of the assessee was computed as Rs.Nil after allowing the benefit of exemption u/s 11 of the Act for all the subject assessment years. Copy of the order dated

PARADIP PORT AUTHORITY,JAGATSINGHPUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), CUTTACK

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 209/CTK/2024[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 Sept 2024AY 2004-05
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 260Section 263

delay should be condoned. 5. Consequent upon the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa and after due consideration of the submission of the assessee, the total income of the assessee was computed as Rs.Nil after allowing the benefit of exemption u/s 11 of the Act for all the subject assessment years. Copy of the order dated

SMT. ANNAPURNA MISHRA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for

ITA 70/CTK/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 May 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargassessment Year:2015-16

For Appellant: Shri B.B.Sahu/B.R.Panda, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR
Section 154Section 96

capital gain is not to be levied in the facts of the case and that has to be exempted entirely. Therefore failure of the forums below to appreciate but to skip over the relevant provisions caused illegality and denial of statutory law already settled. III. For that due consideration should have been made to the report of the qualified Valuer

DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR vs. NATIONAL ALUMINIUM COMPANY LIMITED, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and Revenue along

ITA 69/CTK/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack27 Oct 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.338/Ctk/2017 आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.39/Ctk/2019 आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.01/Ctk/2020 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2009-2010, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017) National Aluminium Company Limited, Vs. Acit, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar Nalco Bhawan, P/1, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaacn 7449 M & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.331/Ctk/2017 आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.69/Ctk/2019 आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.65/Ctk/2020 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2009-2010, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017) National Aluminium Company Limited, Vs. Dcit/Acit, Nalco Bhawan, P/1, Nayapalli, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaacn 7449 M & Cross Objection No.11/Ctk/2019 Cross Objection No.02/Ctk/2020 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.69/Ctk/2019 & 65/Ctk/2020) (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2015-2016 & 2016-2017) National Aluminium Company Limited, Vs. Dcit/Acit, Nalco Bhavan, P/1, Nayapalli, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaacn 7449 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri A.K.Sabat & B.K.Mahapatra, Cas : राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr : सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 06/10/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/10/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue & Cross Objections By The Assessee, Against The Separate Orders Of The Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, Dated 30.12.2017, 27.12.2018 & 24.10.2019

condone the delay of 19 days in filing the present appeal and the appeal is heard finally along with other connected appeals. 3. First of all, we would like to take on record the following paper books filed by the assessee in the appeals under consideration which have been perused and relevant part of the same have been considered

NATIONAL ALUMINIUM COMPANY LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE- 1(2), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and Revenue along

ITA 1/CTK/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack27 Oct 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.338/Ctk/2017 आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.39/Ctk/2019 आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.01/Ctk/2020 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2009-2010, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017) National Aluminium Company Limited, Vs. Acit, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar Nalco Bhawan, P/1, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaacn 7449 M & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.331/Ctk/2017 आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.69/Ctk/2019 आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.65/Ctk/2020 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2009-2010, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017) National Aluminium Company Limited, Vs. Dcit/Acit, Nalco Bhawan, P/1, Nayapalli, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaacn 7449 M & Cross Objection No.11/Ctk/2019 Cross Objection No.02/Ctk/2020 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.69/Ctk/2019 & 65/Ctk/2020) (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2015-2016 & 2016-2017) National Aluminium Company Limited, Vs. Dcit/Acit, Nalco Bhavan, P/1, Nayapalli, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaacn 7449 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri A.K.Sabat & B.K.Mahapatra, Cas : राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr : सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 06/10/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/10/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue & Cross Objections By The Assessee, Against The Separate Orders Of The Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, Dated 30.12.2017, 27.12.2018 & 24.10.2019

condone the delay of 19 days in filing the present appeal and the appeal is heard finally along with other connected appeals. 3. First of all, we would like to take on record the following paper books filed by the assessee in the appeals under consideration which have been perused and relevant part of the same have been considered