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.

21 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 50cclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai101Chennai50Hyderabad48Ahmedabad45Pune23Indore21Surat20Jaipur19Kolkata18Delhi18Visakhapatnam16Lucknow13Nagpur13Bangalore10Jabalpur6Patna6Rajkot6Agra4Jodhpur3Varanasi2Chandigarh2Cuttack1Raipur1Allahabad1Cochin1

Key Topics

Section 26339Condonation of Delay17Deduction15Section 14313Capital Gains13Revision u/s 26313Section 50C8Section 143(3)5Section 147

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

condoned the delay, finding sufficient cause. The case revolves around the valuation of property for capital gains tax, specifically the application of Section 50C

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)

Showing 1–20 of 21 · Page 1 of 2

5
Section 50c5
Section 2504
Section 253(5)4
Section 143(2)
Section 250
Section 253
Section 44A
Section 80C

section 50C(1) of\nthe Income Tax Act.\n2.7 The assessee vide reply dated 16.02.2021 received\nelectronically on -16.02.20121 stated \"We have gone through\nthe entire sale deed and not in a position that how the\namount of Rs.47,89,200/- for each sale deed has been\ndetermined. The sale deed was executed by us for sale value\nof Rs.36

SHRI DINESH NIGAM,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 2 (3), INDORE, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly

ITA 457/IND/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 50CSection 54Section 54B

condonation of delay. 2. The assessee has also raised following additional grounds: 2 [ITA No.457/Ind/2017] [Mr. Dinesh Nigam, Indore] “That, the Learned ITO erred in law and on facts in adopting the value determined by the stamp valuation authority at Rs.1,00,60,000/- for the calculation of LTCG while he ought to have adopted the amount actually received

SHILPA MALIK,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 3(3), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical\npurpose

ITA 346/IND/2025[2012-2013]Status: HeardITAT Indore15 Oct 2025AY 2012-2013
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 253Section 50C

section 50C without fulfilling the\nprerequisite conditions stipulated therein.\n8. That the Learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the\nAO in making an addition to the total income of the appellant\nwithout giving reasonable opportunity of being heard. That on\nthe facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the\nassessment order passed

SHRI MOTILAL MUKATI,INDORE vs. THE PR. CIT-1, INDORE, INDORE

ITA 437/IND/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Jun 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2009-10

Section 143Section 263

condone the delay in filing of instant appeals and admit them for adjudication. 3. Assessee(s) has raised following common grounds of appeal in ITANos.870 to 874/Ind/2019:- GROUND I: 1.On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income tax -I, Indore ["the PCIT"] erred in invoking provisions of section

SHRI ASHOK MUKATI,INDORE vs. PR. CIT-1 , INDORE

ITA 873/IND/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Jun 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2009-10

Section 143Section 263

condone the delay in filing of instant appeals and admit them for adjudication. 3. Assessee(s) has raised following common grounds of appeal in ITANos.870 to 874/Ind/2019:- GROUND I: 1.On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income tax -I, Indore ["the PCIT"] erred in invoking provisions of section

SHRI AKASH MUKATI,INDORE vs. PR. CIT-1, INDORE

ITA 874/IND/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Jun 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2009-10

Section 143Section 263

condone the delay in filing of instant appeals and admit them for adjudication. 3. Assessee(s) has raised following common grounds of appeal in ITANos.870 to 874/Ind/2019:- GROUND I: 1.On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income tax -I, Indore ["the PCIT"] erred in invoking provisions of section

SHRI BADRILAL GOVINDJI MUKATI,INDORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 , INDORE

ITA 425/IND/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Jun 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2009-10

Section 143Section 263

condone the delay in filing of instant appeals and admit them for adjudication. 3. Assessee(s) has raised following common grounds of appeal in ITANos.870 to 874/Ind/2019:- GROUND I: 1.On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income tax -I, Indore ["the PCIT"] erred in invoking provisions of section

SHRI BABULAL MUKATI, INDORE,INDORE vs. PR. CIT -1 , INDORE, INDORE

ITA 434/IND/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Jun 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2009-10

Section 143Section 263

condone the delay in filing of instant appeals and admit them for adjudication. 3. Assessee(s) has raised following common grounds of appeal in ITANos.870 to 874/Ind/2019:- GROUND I: 1.On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income tax -I, Indore ["the PCIT"] erred in invoking provisions of section

SHRI SHANKAR LAL MUKATI-INDORE,INDORE vs. AAYKAR BHAWAN, INDORE, INDORE

ITA 433/IND/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Jun 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2009-10

Section 143Section 263

condone the delay in filing of instant appeals and admit them for adjudication. 3. Assessee(s) has raised following common grounds of appeal in ITANos.870 to 874/Ind/2019:- GROUND I: 1.On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income tax -I, Indore ["the PCIT"] erred in invoking provisions of section

SHRI RADHESHYAM MUKATI , INDORE,INDORE vs. THE PR CIT-1, INDORE, INDORE

ITA 435/IND/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Jun 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2009-10

Section 143Section 263

condone the delay in filing of instant appeals and admit them for adjudication. 3. Assessee(s) has raised following common grounds of appeal in ITANos.870 to 874/Ind/2019:- GROUND I: 1.On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income tax -I, Indore ["the PCIT"] erred in invoking provisions of section

SHRI KAILASH CHANDRA MUKATI, INDORE,INDORE vs. CIT-1, INDORE, INDORE

ITA 436/IND/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Jun 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2009-10

Section 143Section 263

condone the delay in filing of instant appeals and admit them for adjudication. 3. Assessee(s) has raised following common grounds of appeal in ITANos.870 to 874/Ind/2019:- GROUND I: 1.On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income tax -I, Indore ["the PCIT"] erred in invoking provisions of section

SHRI MOTILAL MUKATI (L/H OF SHRI RAMCHANDRA MUKATI INDORE),INDORE vs. PR. CIT-1, INDORE, INDORE

ITA 438/IND/2018[2009]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Jun 2021

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2009-10

Section 143Section 263

condone the delay in filing of instant appeals and admit them for adjudication. 3. Assessee(s) has raised following common grounds of appeal in ITANos.870 to 874/Ind/2019:- GROUND I: 1.On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income tax -I, Indore ["the PCIT"] erred in invoking provisions of section

SHRI TULSI BAI MUKATI,INDORE vs. THE PRICIPLE CIT 1, INDORE

ITA 442/IND/2018[09-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Jun 2021

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2009-10

Section 143Section 263

condone the delay in filing of instant appeals and admit them for adjudication. 3. Assessee(s) has raised following common grounds of appeal in ITANos.870 to 874/Ind/2019:- GROUND I: 1.On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income tax -I, Indore ["the PCIT"] erred in invoking provisions of section

SHRI KAMAL KISHORE MUKATI,INDORE vs. PR. CIT-1, INDORE

ITA 870/IND/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Jun 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2009-10

Section 143Section 263

condone the delay in filing of instant appeals and admit them for adjudication. 3. Assessee(s) has raised following common grounds of appeal in ITANos.870 to 874/Ind/2019:- GROUND I: 1.On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income tax -I, Indore ["the PCIT"] erred in invoking provisions of section

SHRI DILIP MUKATI,INDORE vs. THE PR. CIT-1, INDORE

ITA 871/IND/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Jun 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2009-10

Section 143Section 263

condone the delay in filing of instant appeals and admit them for adjudication. 3. Assessee(s) has raised following common grounds of appeal in ITANos.870 to 874/Ind/2019:- GROUND I: 1.On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income tax -I, Indore ["the PCIT"] erred in invoking provisions of section

SHRI VISHNU MUKATI,INDORE vs. PR. CIT-1, INDORE

ITA 872/IND/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Jun 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2009-10

Section 143Section 263

condone the delay in filing of instant appeals and admit them for adjudication. 3. Assessee(s) has raised following common grounds of appeal in ITANos.870 to 874/Ind/2019:- GROUND I: 1.On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income tax -I, Indore ["the PCIT"] erred in invoking provisions of section

SHRI SURENDRA KAUR HORA,INDORE vs. THE ITO WARD 5(3), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly

ITA 171/IND/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Indore08 Apr 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2006-07

Section 143(3)Section 50C

condone delay and take up the appeal for adjudication. 6. The only effective ground in this appeal is against addition made by the assessing officer, by accepting the value as recommended by the DVO. [ITA 171/Ind/2017] [Smt. Surendra Kaur Hora, Indore] 7. Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions as made in the written submissions. The written submissions

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

SANJAY SHARMA,INDORE vs. ITO-1(1), INDORE

Appeals are allowed for statistical

ITA 5/IND/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Sanjay Sharma, National E-Assessment बनाम/ 41, Kelod Kartal, Centre, Assessment Unit, Vs. Khandwa Road, Income Tax Department, Indore. Nfac,Delhi (Pan: Effps8527L) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Shri Sanjay Sharma, Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ 41, Kelod Kartal, 1(1), Vs. Khandwa Road, Indore. Indore. (Pan: Effps8527L) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

Section 144Section 147Section 253(5)Section 271FSection 50C

section 253(5) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Page 3 of 5 Shri Sanjay Sharma, Indore vs. NFAC, Delhi/ITO(1),Indore. ITA Nos.4 & 5/Ind/2014 – A.Y. 2013-14 Court, we take a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeals and proceed with hearing. I.T.A. No. 04/Ind/2024: 3. In this app-eal, the assessee is aggrieved by income