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.

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

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai405Chennai348Kolkata184Delhi165Ahmedabad152Bangalore144Hyderabad112Jaipur107Karnataka100Pune82Calcutta66Chandigarh50Surat50Indore48Lucknow45Nagpur34Panaji32Cuttack27Visakhapatnam23Patna22Rajkot20Raipur18Cochin16Agra12Varanasi10Ranchi9SC7Guwahati7Amritsar6Jabalpur5Jodhpur4Dehradun3Telangana3A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Andhra Pradesh1Orissa1Allahabad1

Key Topics

Addition to Income52Section 143(3)50Section 14843Long Term Capital Gains41Capital Gains35Section 14733Condonation of Delay32Section 50C30Deduction

ASHWITHA REDDY BADDAM,NIZAMABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NIZAMABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed\nfor the A

ITA 1066/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Feb 2026AY 2015-16
Section 133ASection 147Section 148

long term capital gains declared by the assessee in\nrespect of land in pursuant to the Joint Development Agreement\nwith the builder. Further, the appellant has computed cost of\nacquisition at 2150 per sq.yd and the same was subjected to\nscrutiny assessment, where the A.O. has accepted the cost\nclaimed by the assessee. Further, although the proceedings were\nsubjected

PARANJYOTHI THOTA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2050/HYD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad

Showing 1–20 of 112 · Page 1 of 6

29
Section 14422
Limitation/Time-bar21
Section 143(2)20
25 Feb 2026
AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos. 2050 & 2079/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Smt. Paran Jyothi Thota Vs. Asstt. Cit Hyderabad Circle 5(1) Pan:Ajqpt7772F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Advocate C. Anurag रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 12/02/2026 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 25/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M. These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 09/09/2025 & 25/09/2025, For The Assessment Year 2012-13. Page 1 Of 33

For Appellant: Advocate C. AnuragFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C

long-term- capital gain of Rs.17,63,438/- and completed the assessment under section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 23/12/2019 and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.17,63,438/-. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT (A) and such appeal has been filed on 16/05/2023. During

PARANJYOTHI THOTA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2079/HYD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos. 2050 & 2079/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Smt. Paran Jyothi Thota Vs. Asstt. Cit Hyderabad Circle 5(1) Pan:Ajqpt7772F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Advocate C. Anurag रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 12/02/2026 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 25/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M. These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 09/09/2025 & 25/09/2025, For The Assessment Year 2012-13. Page 1 Of 33

For Appellant: Advocate C. AnuragFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C

long-term- capital gain of Rs.17,63,438/- and completed the assessment under section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 23/12/2019 and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.17,63,438/-. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT (A) and such appeal has been filed on 16/05/2023. During

MOHAN REDDY GADDAM,NIZAMABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NIZAMABAD

ITA 1065/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Feb 2026AY 2017-18
Section 133ASection 147Section 148

long term capital gains declared by the assessee in\nrespect of land in pursuant to the Joint Development Agreement\nwith the builder. Further, the appellant has computed cost of\nacquisition at 2150 per sq.yd and the same was subjected to\nscrutiny assessment, where the A.O. has accepted the cost\nclaimed by the assessee. Further, although the proceedings were\nsubjected

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD vs. LAKSHMI NARAYANA TURAIRAO , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 232/HYD/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jul 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 54B

delay ITA No.232/Hyd/2020 2 of 29 days in filing of this appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. The grounds raised by the revenue read as under : “ 1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred is erroneous both on fact and law. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the short term capital gains of Rs.2

GADDAM MOHAN REDDY,NIZAMABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NIZAMABAD

ITA 1064/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Feb 2026AY 2016-17
Section 133ASection 147Section 148

long term capital gains declared by the assessee in\nrespect of land in pursuant to the Joint Development Agreement\nwith the builder. Further, the appellant has computed cost of\nacquisition at 2150 per sq.yd and the same was subjected to\nscrutiny assessment, where the A.O. has accepted the cost\nclaimed by the assessee. Further, although the proceedings were\nsubjected

GADDAM MOHAN REDDY,NIZAMABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NIZAMABAD

ITA 1063/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Feb 2026AY 2015-16
Section 133ASection 147Section 148

long term capital gains declared by the assessee in\nrespect of land in pursuant to the Joint Development Agreement\nwith the builder. Further, the appellant has computed cost of\nacquisition at 2150 per sq.yd and the same was subjected to\nscrutiny assessment, where the A.O. has accepted the cost\nclaimed by the assessee. Further, although the proceedings were\nsubjected

DEMI REALTORS,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes on the above terms

ITA 156/HYD/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Respondent: Ms. T. Vijaya Lakhsmi, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 40a

long time." There is again no basis, for condonation but for sympathy and playing the victim card. The appellant is not even humble in the admission of the same. Therefore, there is no basis for condonation of delay and no case of financial hardship has been brought out in the submission made by the appellant. The appellant has used

PADMAVATHI REDDY GADDAM ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-1, HYDERABAD

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 538/HYD/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Sept 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri K.A.Sai Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, DR
Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 50C(1)

delay is condoned therefore. 3. The assessee has raised the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal: “1.The order of the learned First Appellate Authority is not correct either in law or on facts and in both. 2.The learned First Appellate Authority failed to appreciate the fact that the property in dispute owned by the State Government

RAZIULLA SYED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO (INT TAXN)-2, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 986/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA P Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 195

condone the delay of 134 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits as under. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a Non-Resident Indian and working as Sr. Foreman (Civil Contracts) in Facilities Management Department with M/s. Qatar Energy and filed letter dated 25.08.2022 from

BALAJI FINANCE,GAWAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MAHBUBNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purposes

ITA 1375/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

long-term capital gains. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the indexed cost of acquisition of land, assuming it was included in the construction cost. The assessee appealed this decision.", "held": "The Tribunal noted that the delay in filing the appeal was due to the assessee's medical condition and condoned

KAKINADA INFRASTRUCTURE HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 1053/HYD/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jan 2026AY 2021-2022
For Appellant: \nShri Naresh Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: MS Reema Yadav, Sr. AR
Section 270A

capital gains of Rs.373 crores\non account of sale of shares of Kakinada Seaports Limited to\nM/s. Auro Infra Private Limited. Since, this was the income\noffered by the assessee and accepted by the Assessing Officer\nand therefore, there was no question of dispute on this point\nat the stage of assessment order as well as appellate order\npassed

SUNITHA MALU,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-5(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 1921/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Mar 2026AY 2018-19
Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 57

condone the delay of 14 days in filing the appeal and proceed to adjudicate the case on merits. 5. Succinctly stated, the assessee had filed its revised return of income for the AY 2018-19 on 26/12/2018, declaring an income of Rs.23,05,820/-. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for “limited scrutiny” for verifying “large deduction claimed

ORBIS REAL ESTATE FUND I,HYDERABAD (AUTH. REP.) vs. ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2 - 2, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 785/HYD/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Sept 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Sai Sourabh K, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Narender Kumar Naik
Section 143(3)Section 154

condone the delay of filing of the appeal before the Honorable ITAT.” 4. Brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is a foreign company incorporated in Mauritius, filed its Return of Income (“ROI”) for the A.Y. 2020-21 declaring total income of Rs.Nil, claiming a refund of Rs.13,70,49,255/-. The case of the assessee was selected

GOPAL NAIDU THIRUMALESH,CHITTOOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -2, CHITTOOR.

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

ITA 314/HYD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.314/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Gopal Naidu Vs. Income Tax Officer Thirumalesh Ward 2 Chittoor Chittoor Pan:Aosps0818Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Ashish Kumar Shukla, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 14/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 14/10/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Ashish Kumar Shukla, DR
Section 139Section 148Section 2(47)Section 54F

delay of 5 days in filing of the appeal by the Page 1 of 6 ITA No 314 of 2024 Gopal Naidu Thirumalesh assessee is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income

BOMMAK PREM KUMAR,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-15(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed in limine

ITA 927/HYD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: MS. S. Sandhya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr AR
Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54F

long term capital gains of the assessee at Rs.2,49,39,660/- u/sec.54F of the Act. And in appeal before the learned CIT(A), there was a delay of 175 days. The learned CIT(A) did not condone

UMA MAHESWARA RAO BODAPATI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE 2(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 292/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 292/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri Uma Maheshwara Rao Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Bodapati, Circle 2(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Atnpb5755D (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Adv. T. Chaitanya Kumar राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 03/07/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Adv. T. Chaitanya KumarFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 50C

delay of 16 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a non- resident and filed his return of income for the A.Y 2016-17 on 29.07.2016 declaring total income at Rs.8,29,23,240/-. The assessment has been

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KADAPA vs. S.V.SATISH KUMAR REDDY , KADAPA

ITA 2236/HYD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2012-13 Acit,Circle-1 Vs. Shri S.V.Satish Kumar Aaykar Bhavan Reddy #2-430-8, Nagarajupet #1-700A, Dwaraka Nagar Kadapa Kadapa-516 001

For Appellant: Shri S.Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.P.R.R.Murthy,Sr.AR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

delay in filing of the cross objection by the assessee is condoned and the cross objection is admitted for adjudication. 3. First we take-up ITA No.2236/Hyd/2018 for AY 2012-13 as the lead case. 4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and a member of the Legislative Council of Andhra Pradesh

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KADAPA vs. M.BHAGYA LAKSHMI , KADAPA

ITA 96/HYD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2012-13 Acit,Circle-1 Vs. Shri S.V.Satish Kumar Aaykar Bhavan Reddy #2-430-8, Nagarajupet #1-700A, Dwaraka Nagar Kadapa Kadapa-516 001

For Appellant: Shri S.Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.P.R.R.Murthy,Sr.AR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

delay in filing of the cross objection by the assessee is condoned and the cross objection is admitted for adjudication. 3. First we take-up ITA No.2236/Hyd/2018 for AY 2012-13 as the lead case. 4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and a member of the Legislative Council of Andhra Pradesh

PARVATHANENI PRAVEEN,KHAMMAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KHAMMAM

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 1271/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Mar 2026AY 2021-22
For Appellant: Sri KA Sai Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

Long-Term Capital gain of Rs.96,86,686/- on\nsale on non-agricultural land is hereby added back to the total of\nthe assessee.\nPenalty proceedings u/s 270A of the IT Act is initiated for under-\nreporting and misreporting of income as the assessee has failed to\n16\nITA.No.1271/Hyd./2025\ndeclare the LTCG which has resulted in increase