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.

5 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 53Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Raipur38Bangalore23Chennai17Mumbai16Patna7Kolkata7Delhi5Hyderabad5Pune3Visakhapatnam2Indore2SC2Ahmedabad2Calcutta1Telangana1Nagpur1Chandigarh1

Key Topics

Section 54F7Section 547Section 69A4Deduction3Addition to Income3Condonation of Delay3Section 143(3)2Section 55A2Exemption

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), MEERUT, MEERUT vs. PREM SAPRA, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1739/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2021-22

Section 143(3)Section 54

delay of 99 days in filing the instant appeal is condoned. 3. The brief facts leading to the case are that the assessee is a senior citizen and does not carry any business activities. During the year under consideration, the assessee has sold a residential property at 197-A, Saket, Meerut for a consideration

DEEPAK CHHABRA,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-49(1), DELHI

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

ITA 979/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2025AY 2017-18
2
Limitation/Time-bar2

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.979/Del./2025, A.Y. 2017-18 Deepak Chhabra Income Tax Officer, E-53A, Mansarover Garden, Ward-49(1), New Delhi Vs. New Delhi Pan: Afdpc9133N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By None Respondent By Shri Dheeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22/08/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am The Appeal For The Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2017-18 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.01.2023 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, New Delhi [‘Cit(A)’].

Section 115BSection 254Section 271ASection 69A

53A, Mansarover Garden, Ward-49(1), New Delhi Vs. New Delhi PAN: AFDPC9133N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by None Respondent by Shri Dheeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 20/08/2025 Date of Pronouncement 22/08/2025 ORDER PER AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, AM The appeal for the Assessment Year (‘AY’) 2017-18 filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated

MANJULA SETHI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 4(2), NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3909/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Smt. Renu Jauhrimanjula Sethi Vs. Addl./Joint/Deputy/Assistant L-42A Lajpat Nagar-Ii Commissioner Of Income New Delhi- 110024 Tax/Ito,National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aatps7572E Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh.Rajiv Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 53ASection 54F

delay is, thus, condoned. 3. The assessee has claimed exemption of Rs.5,18,39,518/- under Section 54F of the Act by purchasing a residential house lying and situated at PH-2, Sun Court Apartment, Tower-1, Greater Noida for a consideration of Rs.520,00,000/- out of the total amount of Rs.5,23,32,741/- earned as LTCG

VIJAY KUMAR SETH,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 33(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5244/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Mar 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhu & Sh. N. S. Sainiita No. 5244/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Vijay Kumar Seth, Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Flat No. 8, Vasant Enclave, Tax, Circle-33(1), New Delhi-110057 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Acxps6514Q Assessee By : Sh. Karan Kumra, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Surender Pal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.03.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini:

For Appellant: Sh. Karan Kumra, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54FSection 55A

53A of the Act. He relied on the decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) Vs Hotel Joshi (2000) 242 ITR 478 (Raj.) wherein it was held as under: “7. A plain reading of the provision shows that an Assessing Officer with a view to ascertain the fair market value

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL-1) vs. LATE SHRI SUDHIR SAREEN

ITA/284/2015HC Delhi06 Jul 2015

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Section 375

Section 376 of IPC, the husband would be protected because of MRE. It cannot be the State's policy or in its interest to prosecute only some rapists and not those who are married to the victim in such cases. 46.1. MRE grants blanket immunity to sexual acts enumerated in clauses (a) to (d) of Section