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.

23 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 54Fclear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai67Mumbai36Bangalore34Hyderabad28Indore23Jaipur20Delhi19Pune17Ahmedabad14Kolkata13Chandigarh8Patna7Lucknow6Visakhapatnam5Calcutta3Cuttack3Cochin3Amritsar3Nagpur2Surat2Jabalpur1Agra1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Punjab & Haryana1Raipur1Rajkot1SC1

Key Topics

Section 26349Condonation of Delay22Section 14720Deduction16Revision u/s 26315Section 14313Capital Gains13Section 1488Section 250

GOVERDHAN LAL YADAV,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(5), INDORE

Appeal is allowed

ITA 854/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year : 2015-16 Goverdhan Lal Yadav, Ito-3(5) 112/12, Nanda Nagar, Indore बनाम/ Opp. Anoop Takies, Vs. Indore (Revenue / Appellant) (Assessee / Respondent) Pan: Aaypy9432A Assessee By Shri Venus Rawka, Ar Revenue By Shri Anoop Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 22.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.07.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 253(5)Section 54B

section 253(5) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 3. The background facts leading to this appeal are such that the assessee-individual filed return of AY 2015-16 declaring a total income of Rs. Page 3 of 14 Goverdhan Lal Yadav ITA No. 854/Ind/2024-

SEWA SAHKARI SAMMITTEE MARYADIT,BEED, MUNDI KHANDWA vs. PCIT-1, INDORE

In the result, appeal by the assesse is allowed

Showing 1–20 of 23 · Page 1 of 2

7
Addition to Income7
Section 54B6
Section 54F6
ITA 44/IND/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisewa Sahkari Sammittee Pr. Cit-2 Maryadit Beed Indore Vs. Beed Mundi Khandwa (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aaufs0703N Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 05.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30.10.2023

Section 12ASection 138Section 143(3)Section 263

condone delay) and termination of proceedings.” Accordingly the appeal filed by the assesse on 04.03.2022 is treated as within the limitation. The assesse has raised following grounds: “1. That the order of the Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Indore u/s 263 of the Act is illegal, void and without jurisdiction. 2. That the Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income

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

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

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

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

condone the delay and take up the appeal for hearing. 6. Ground Nos.1 to 4 are inter-connected and are against treating the agricultural land as capital asset. Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions as made in the statement of facts. The submission of Ld. Counsel in the statement of facts are as under: 1. “The appellant

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

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 u/s 143(2)/142(1) which were complied by assessee. Ultimately, the AO passed assessment-order determining total income at Rs. 1,08,12,716/- after making these additions, namely (i) short-term capital

SHRI ISLAM PATEL,INDORE vs. THE ITO 5 (5), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of assesse is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 111/IND/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Raoshri Islam Patel Ito, 5(5) 13, Mayakhedi Jhalariya Indore Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Dpcpp 7925 D Assessee By Shri Pranay Goyal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 16.11.2023

Section 144Section 147Section 54BSection 54F

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 5. The assesse has raised following grounds: “1. That, the appellate order passed by Ld. CIT-A is erroneous on the facts and in law. Page 2 of 5 SMC-Islam Patel Page 3 of 5 2. That, the appellate order passed by Ld. CIT-A, is contrary to the weight of evidence

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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

GEETA BAI,BHOPAL vs. ITO 4(4), BHOPAL

In the result appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 305/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 54F

delay of 98 days, 22 days and 23 days in filing these appeals for Assessment Year 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 respectively is condoned. 3. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: Page 2 of 7 ITANos.303 to 305/Ind/2024 Geeta Bai ITA. No.303/Ind/2024 A.Y 2013-14: “1. That in the facts and circumstances of the case