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.

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

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai405Chennai348Kolkata184Delhi165Ahmedabad152Bangalore144Hyderabad112Jaipur107Karnataka100Pune82Calcutta66Chandigarh50Surat50Indore48Lucknow45Nagpur34Panaji32Cuttack27Patna22Visakhapatnam21Rajkot20Raipur18Cochin16Agra12Varanasi10Ranchi9SC7Guwahati7Amritsar6Jabalpur5Jodhpur4Dehradun3Telangana3A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Orissa1Andhra Pradesh1Allahabad1

Key Topics

Section 14734Section 143(3)26Section 26325Section 25023Addition to Income22Condonation of Delay22Section 1118Section 14815Section 10

SHRI SALEEM PARVEZ,BHOPAL vs. PCIT -1, BHOPAL

In the result this appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 248/IND/2021[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Indore09 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani(Virtual Hearing) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Saleem Parvez Pcit-1 Bhopal Bhopal बनाम/ P.A.No. Acyps8006L Vs. Appellant (Assessee) Respondent (Revenue) Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpandey, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 22 / 02 / 2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09 /03/ 2022 आदेश / O R D E R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

delay is condoned and the appeal is proceeded with for hearing. Page 2 of 12 Saleem Parvez ITANo.248/Ind/2021 4. The assessee submitted original return on 31.10.2015 at a total income of Rs. 2,74,75,700/- and revised return on 17.08.2016 at a total income of Rs. 3,76,76,850/-. The case of assessee was selected under scrutiny through

SHRI BHAWANI SHANKAR PARASHAR,INDORE vs. THE DCIT/ACIT 1 (2), INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Showing 1–20 of 48 · Page 1 of 3

13
Limitation/Time-bar12
Long Term Capital Gains12
Section 12A11
ITA 411/IND/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Bhawani Shankar Pr. Cit-1 Prashar Indore 28, Lasudia Mori, Vijay Vs. Nagar, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Bgbpp 2475 G Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 02.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21.06.2023

Section 263

condoned the delay in filing the present appeal. The assessee has raised following grounds: “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld Pr. CIT erred in setting-aside the order as passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 by invoking

SHASHI PRABHA SINGHANIA,NEEMUCH vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER NEEMUCH, NEEMUCH

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 800/IND/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore05 May 2025AY 2018-19
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 253Section 44ASection 80C

Long term capital gain\nas per para 6 above\nRs.21.68.388/-\nGROSS TOTAL ASSESSED INCOME\nRs.30,24,974/-\nLong term capital gain of Rs.21,68,388/- to be taxed separately\n2.12 That the aforesaid assessment order of Ld. A.O bears\nNo.ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2020-21/1031627237(1) and is dated\n20.03.2021 which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned\nassessment order\".\n2.13 That the assessee being

SHREE SHANTANU VIDHYAPEETH SOCIETY ,INDORE, M.P. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 640/IND/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Sept 2025AY 2018-19
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)

long run, benefit the department, for it would inspire\nconfidence in him that he may be sure of getting a square deal\nfrom the department. Although, therefore, the responsibility for\nclaiming refunds and relief rests with the assessee on whom it\nis imposed by law, officers should-\n\n1. draw their attention to any refunds or reliefs to which they

LATE SHRI BALKRISHAN JOSHI (THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SHRI BHOOPENDRA JOSHI),INDORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-5(1), INDORE, INDORE

Appeal is allowed partly

ITA 402/IND/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 May 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2008-09 Late Shri Balkrishan Joshi Income-Tax Officer, (Through L/H Shri 5(1), Bhoopendra Joshi), Indore बनाम/ 541, Alok Nagar, Vs. Kanadia Road, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Abjpj 0180 C Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal & Shri Bavesh Agrawal, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 21.05.2024

Section 143(3)Section 253(5)

condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 3. This is the 2nd round of litigation by assessee before us. The background facts are such that the assessee filed return of income for AY 2008-09 on 31.07.2008 declaring a total income of Rs. 4,13,910/- which included long-term capital gain

NAYANA JAYESH PATEL,INDORE vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 475/IND/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Jan 2026AY 2012-13
Section 147Section 250Section 50c

long-term capital gain of rs. 18594875 as against computed by\nthe assessee and accepted in original assessment at rs. nil.\n5. That Id. CIT(A) has erred in not considering the provisions of first\nproviso to section 50c of the act properly and also without considering\nthe supporting documents submitted by assessee in support of\napplication of first proviso

PRAKASH NARAYAN PATIDAR,BHOPAL vs. ITO 2(4), BHOPAL

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 62/IND/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Aug 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2007-08 Prakash Narayan Patidar, Cit(A)-3 बनाम Misrod, Bhopal Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) /Vs. Pan: Aprpp7337R Assessee By None Revenue By None Date Of Hearing 02.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 10.08.2022 आदेश / O R D E R

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

delay is condoned and appeal was preceded for hearing. 4. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. That a proper and meaningful opportunity has not been afforded to the assessee to put up his defense in respect of the issues disputed in appeal. 2. That ld. CIT has erred in not conducting proper verification of the facts

SARWAR MOHD. KHAN,BHOPAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 (1), BHOPAL

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

ITA 191/IND/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Shukla, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 48

delay is hereby condoned. 3. None appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of call no adjournment has been sought for. However, a short submission has been filed by the assessee in favour of the case made out. On the other hand, the Ld. D.R. on the other hand relied upon the order passed by the authorities below

MOHAMMAD ZAHOOR QURESHI,BHOPAL vs. ITO-4(2), BHOPAL

ITA 557/IND/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Paresh M Joshi & Shri Bijayananda Prusethassessment Year: 2014-15 Mohammad Zahoor Ito 4(2), Qureshi, Bhopal House No.956, Bagh Farhat Afza Gate Ke Andar, बनाम/ Gali No.2, Vs. Near Rajesh Cycle Aishbagh Stadium, Bhopal

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253Section 50CSection 54FSection 56(2)(vii)

Delay condoned. Appeal taken for hearing. 2. FACTUAL MATRIX 2.1 That the assessee had filed his return of income on 26.02.2016 wherein a total income of Rs.2,14,400/- was declared. 2.2 That the return of income was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. 2.3 That the Department of Income Tax had an information that during the Financial Year

GUNVEER SINGH CHHABRA ,INDORE vs. THE PR CIT -1, INDORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 117/IND/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy, Judicial Memebr & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Shubhash Jain, A.R
Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 263

condone the delay. 3. The original assessment order was passed by the Learned AO on 15.12.2017 under Section 143(3) of the Act, upon hearing the learned counsel appearing for the assessee and considering the written submissions along with copy of the computation of income, bank statement and other details as sought for. These documents were duly examined

INCOME TAX OFFICER - 3(1), BHOPAL, METRO WALK BUILDING, BITTON MARKET, BHOPAL vs. SHABANA SHEIKH, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical

ITA 588/IND/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Paresh M Joshiassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 54ESection 69A

Long Term Capital Gains accrued to the appellant on sale of her immovable property. In view of the above, the addition of Rs.50,00,000/- made by the Ld. AO is hereby deleted. The ground of appeal no. 2 is allowed. Page 3 of 8 Shabana Sheikh A.Y. 2018-19 Ground No.3:- The ground of appeal has been made

ASHWINI SHRIVASTAVA,BHOPAL vs. ITO-2(5), BHOPAL

In the result “impugned order” is set aside as and by way

ITA 475/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore15 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiashwani Shrivastava, Income Tax Officer- बनाम/ 169 Crystle Ideal City, 2(5), Vs. Awadhpuri, Bhopal Bhopal (Pan: Aemps0026G) (Appellant) (Revenue) Assessee By S/Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 15.05.2025

Section 144Section 246ASection 250Section 253

long term capital gain. 6. The appellant carves leave to add, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal.” 3. Record of Hearing 3.1 The hearing in the matter took place before this Tribunal on 08.05.2025 when the Ld. AR for and on behalf of the assessee appeared before us and interalia contended that there is delay of Page

VIJAY KOTHARI,INDORE vs. DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE

ITA 267/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2026AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)Section 250

long-term capital gain of Rs.26,04,470/- from sale of\n6,000 shares of Sunrise Asian Limited [“Sunrise”]" exempted u/s 10(38). The\ntotal sale-proceed declared by assessee was Rs.27,54,470/-, the total cost\nwas Rs.1,50,000/- and thus the capital gain of Rs.26,04,470/- was offered;\nthese details are available in the Computation

SHRI LEELAHAR PALASIYAWALA,INDORE vs. THE ITO 4(4), INDORE

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 346/IND/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Leeladhar Palasiyawala, Pr.Cit-1, Village Kalariya, Post Indore बनाम/ Kalariya, Vs. Indore. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Bqdppo511K Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal, Ca & Shri N. D. Patwa, Adv. Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 19.12.2023

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54B

condone the delay, allow this appeal and proceed for hearing. Page 2 of 16 Leeladhar Palasiawala, Indore, vs. Pr. CIT –I, Indore. ITA No. 346/Ind/2022 – AY 2015-16 4. Brief facts are such that the assessee filed return of income of relevant assessment-year which was subjected to scrutiny-assessment and the AO completed assessment u/s 143(3). Subsequently

KISHORE SEWANI,BHOPAL vs. ITO-1(4), BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed for statistical\npurposes

ITA 517/IND/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore12 Sept 2025AY 2013-14
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54F

long-term\ncapital gain computed at Rs. Nil from sale of an agricultural land situated\nat Gondermau, Bhopal for Rs.1.25 crore after claiming deduction of cost of\nacquisition, transfer expenses and exemption u/s 54F on the basis of new\ninvestment in a property. The case of assessee was taken up for scrutiny\nassessment and the AO issued statutory notices

SITARAM MUCHHALA,MARDANA vs. ITO KHARGONE, KHARGONE

ITA 661/IND/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 45Section 56Section 57

long-term capital gain, and Rs.7,12,816 under Section 56 as taxable interest income, after allowing a 50% deduction under Section 57(iv). As the appellant failed to furnish any supporting documents, the assessing officer computed the Page 4 of 13 Sitaram Muchhala ITA No. 661/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2018-19 capital gains with the cost of acquisition and Improvement taken

KISHORE SEWANI,BHOPAL vs. ITO-1(1), BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed for statistical

ITA 248/IND/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore12 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi & Kishore Sewani, Ito-1(4) बनाम/ House No.33, Parika Bhopal Vs. Society, Phase-1, Chunabhatti, Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan:Ankps8260M Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12.09.2025

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 253(5)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54F

long-term capital gain computed at Rs. Nil from sale of an agricultural land situated at Gondermau, Bhopal for Rs. 1.25 crore after claiming deduction of cost of acquisition, transfer expenses and exemption u/s 54F on the basis of new investment in a property. The case of assessee was taken up for scrutiny assessment and the AO issued statutory notices

MS. SANGEETA CHOPRA,UJJAIN vs. THE PR. CIT. UJJAIN, UJJAIN

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

ITA 631/IND/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Porwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri P. K. Mitra, CIT DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 147(3)Section 22Section 263Section 54

delay hereby condoned. 3. The brief facts leading to the case is this that the assessment under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 was completed on 27.10.2016 accepting the total income of Rs. 19,740/- as declared by the assessee in the return of income filed. The assessee is an individual and not having any income liable to tax as stated

ANTAR SINGH MEWADA,BHOPAL vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC)

Appeal of the assessed is allowed for statistical

ITA 416/IND/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Sept 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiantar Singh Mewada, Cit(A), बनाम/ 1, Barkhera Salam 1, Nfac, Vs. Barkhera Salam, Delhi Po Bhouri, Techsil Hujur Dist. Bhopal (Pan:Bompm3467E) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Dr Date Of Hearing 01.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 253

long term capital gain on sale of land of Rs.5237580.00 was assessed by the learned AO and added to the total income of the assesse resulting in the demand of Rs. 1627310.00 which is not correct and needs to be deleted. 4 That value of property considered at Rs 17005000.000 being market value as against actual consideration

SHRI KAMLESH PUROHIT,KARAMDI vs. ITO, RATLAM

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 150/IND/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore04 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Kamlesh Purohit, L/H & Ito S/O Late Ramsingh Purohit, Ratlam Vs. 89/1, Village Karamdi, Ratlam (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Bbbpp5709A Assessee By Shri Manoj Fadnis, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 03.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 04.07.2024 O R D E R

Section 144

delay of 107 days and the same is condoned. 2 Kamlesh Purohit 4. The assesse has raised following grounds of appeal: “1.That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the order of Id.ITO-1, Ratlam, who computed the capital gains on sale of agricultural land without deducting the indexed