BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtAI 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.

42 results for “capital gains”+ Condonation of Delayclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai364Chennai326Ahmedabad211Delhi192Jaipur160Kolkata142Hyderabad126Chandigarh121Bangalore111Pune111Indore83Surat56Lucknow45Visakhapatnam44Nagpur42Patna38Panaji38Agra30Rajkot30Cochin25Raipur22Cuttack20Amritsar17Jabalpur10Jodhpur10Ranchi9Guwahati7Varanasi7Dehradun6Allahabad2

Key Topics

Section 153C86Section 143(3)38Section 153A37Section 6826Section 50C24Addition to Income24Section 25022Section 26320Condonation of Delay19Section 147

VINAY RAMSHARANDAS AGRAWAL,NAGPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 110/NAG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kishore P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 143(3)Section 263

condone the delay and admit the same for adjudication on merits. 6. Insofar as the merits of the case are concerned, the facts are, the assessee is an Individual. For the year under consideration, on 31/01/2018, the assessee filed his return of income electronically, disclosing total income of ` 12,96,33,940. During the course of regular assessment framed under

ALKESH SHARADRAOJI KHADSE,NAGPUR vs. A.O. WARD 3(4),NAGPUR, NAGPUR

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

Showing 1–20 of 42 · Page 1 of 3

15
Limitation/Time-bar10
Natural Justice10
ITA 536/NAG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur17 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shripavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri.Krishnakumar Gupta. ARFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.DR
Section 2(14)Section 250(6)Section 50C

delay is condoned and the appeals are admitted. Assessee’s appeal – A.Y. 2014–15 3. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:– 3 Pavan Sharadrao Khadse Alkesh Sharadraoji Khadse Lata Sharadraoji Khadse ITA no.534, 536 544/NAG./2025 ITA no.537,549/NAG./2025 “The Appellant respectfully submits the following grounds of appeal against the order dated 29.07.2022 passed

ALKESH SHARADRAOJI KHADSE,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 3(4), NAGPUR

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

ITA 544/NAG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur17 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shripavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri.Krishnakumar Gupta. ARFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.DR
Section 2(14)Section 250(6)Section 50C

delay is condoned and the appeals are admitted. Assessee’s appeal – A.Y. 2014–15 3. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:– 3 Pavan Sharadrao Khadse Alkesh Sharadraoji Khadse Lata Sharadraoji Khadse ITA no.534, 536 544/NAG./2025 ITA no.537,549/NAG./2025 “The Appellant respectfully submits the following grounds of appeal against the order dated 29.07.2022 passed

LATA SHARADRAO KHADSE,NAGPUR vs. ITO WD3(4), NAGPUR

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

ITA 549/NAG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur17 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shripavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri.Krishnakumar Gupta. ARFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.DR
Section 2(14)Section 250(6)Section 50C

delay is condoned and the appeals are admitted. Assessee’s appeal – A.Y. 2014–15 3. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:– 3 Pavan Sharadrao Khadse Alkesh Sharadraoji Khadse Lata Sharadraoji Khadse ITA no.534, 536 544/NAG./2025 ITA no.537,549/NAG./2025 “The Appellant respectfully submits the following grounds of appeal against the order dated 29.07.2022 passed

LATA SHARADRAO KHADSE,NAGPUR vs. A.O. WARD 3(4), NAGPUR, NAGPUR

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

ITA 537/NAG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur17 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shripavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri.Krishnakumar Gupta. ARFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.DR
Section 2(14)Section 250(6)Section 50C

delay is condoned and the appeals are admitted. Assessee’s appeal – A.Y. 2014–15 3. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:– 3 Pavan Sharadrao Khadse Alkesh Sharadraoji Khadse Lata Sharadraoji Khadse ITA no.534, 536 544/NAG./2025 ITA no.537,549/NAG./2025 “The Appellant respectfully submits the following grounds of appeal against the order dated 29.07.2022 passed

PAWAN SHARADRAO KHADSE,NAGPUR vs. A.O. WARD 3(4), NAGPUR, NAGPUR

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

ITA 534/NAG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur17 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shripavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri.Krishnakumar Gupta. ARFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.DR
Section 2(14)Section 250(6)Section 50C

delay is condoned and the appeals are admitted. Assessee’s appeal – A.Y. 2014–15 3. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:– 3 Pavan Sharadrao Khadse Alkesh Sharadraoji Khadse Lata Sharadraoji Khadse ITA no.534, 536 544/NAG./2025 ITA no.537,549/NAG./2025 “The Appellant respectfully submits the following grounds of appeal against the order dated 29.07.2022 passed

ANANT RAMRAO CHAVAN,AMRAVATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, AMRAVATI

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

ITA 476/NAG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 250

capital gain on sale of land which is not given in the order. 6. The learned CIT (A) erred in not deciding the issue on merits only because of delay. The learned CIT (A) is unjustified in dismissing the appeal which is required to be condoned

SHRI PRALHAD CHODHARY ,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(3), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 164/NAG/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Jan 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.164/Nag/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 Shri Pralhadchodhary, The Assistant Commissioner Choudhary Bhawan, V Of Income Tax, Central Sakkardara, S Circle-1(3), Nagpur. Nagpur – 440032. Pan: Ahepc0847Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/Revenue Assessee By Shri Umang Agrawal – Ar Revenue By Shri Kailash G. Kanojiya – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 23/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 25/01/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Common Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Nagpur Dated 18.03.2013 Emanating From Assessment Order Under Section 153C R.W.S143(3) Dated 29.12.2010 For A.Y.2007-08. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under : Shri Pralhad Chodhary [A]

Section 132Section 153CSection 17Section 2(47)(v)

Capital Gain Tax. Accordingly, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Condonation of Delay: 8. There is delay in filing of appeal

FATTESING PUNAJI DHABRE,NAGPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX – 2, NAGPUR

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 368/NAG/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur24 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy(Physical Hearing) Fattesing Punaji Dhabre Pcit – 2, Nagpur Plot No. 132, Chandan Nagar, Post Vs Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Hanuman Nagar, Nagpur, Maharashtra – 440001. Maharashtra – 440009. [Pan: Bacpd6505Q] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Madhav Vichare, Ca Revenue By Shri Pankaj Kumar, Cit–Dr Date Of Hearing 17.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2026 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 254(1)Section 263Section 54B

gain, first on considering sale consideration at `. 70,00,000/– and after reducing investment made as per section 54B, the assessee has suffered capital loss and in second working in considering deemed sale consideration of `. 1.20 crore, the assessee also suffered capital loss. The assessee also furnished detail explanation and submitted that if valuation of property

PRAKASH SHESHRAO WANKHEDE,KORADI KAMPTEE, NAGPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(4), NAGPUR

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

ITA 461/NAG/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Oct 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleprakash Sheshrao Wankhede, Khaprikoradi, Ward No.6 Near Hanuman Mandir Tehsil Kamptee, Koradi (Nv) ……………. Appellant Nagpur -441 111, Maharashtra. Pan–Abypw7048B V/S Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–3(4), Nagpur Assessee By: None Revenue By : Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr.DR
Section 54F

condoned the delay of 21 days in tiling of appeal since the 2 Prakash Sheshrao Wankhede ITA no.461/NAG./2025 assessee being a person with no means working as Watchman. The assessee was advised to provide with the documents for claiming of relief which he received on 09th May 2023 and subsequent to which appeal before the CIT(A) was filed

RAMESH WASUDEORAO NAWSALKAR,AMRAVATI vs. DCIT AMRAVATI CIRCLE, AMRAVATI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 746/NAG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Bhushan Lathiya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 30

gained from delaying the appeal. Therefore, adopting a justice oriented approach and also taking guidance from the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. [(1987) 2 SCC 107] and in the case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382), I hereby

SANJAY MOTIRAMJI MULEY,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD (4)(3), NAGPUR

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

ITA 4/NAG/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur07 Oct 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesanjay Motiramji Muley, Ward No.7, Mahajan Pura ……………. Appellant Bhandara Road, Pardi Nagpur 440008. Pan – Akdpm6463G V/S Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–4(4), Nagpur Assessee By : Ms. Alfiya Rozie.Ar Revenue By :Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Ms. Alfiya Rozie.ARFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 50C

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted. 4. The Brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is a non–filer of the Income Tax Return for the assessment year 2008–09. The Assessing Officer has received information that the assessee has sold immovable property and the income was not offered to tax. The Assessing Officer has reason

TAJSHREE AUTOWHEELS PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR

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

ITA 400/NAG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur04 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Madhav VichoreFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

condone the delay of 446 days in filing the present appeal and admit the same for adjudication on merit. 5. Facts in Brief:– The assessee is a Private Limited Company engaged in the business of Automobiles and Auto Parts. During the year under consideration, the assessee–company allotted addition 2,00,000 shares for a premium of ` 40, per share

SIMA RAVISINGH KACHHAWAH,UMRER vs. ITO WARD 3(4), NAGPUR

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

ITA 418/NAG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shripavan Kumar Gadalesima Ravisingh Kachhawah, Girad Road, Om Nagar Umrer, ……………. Appellant Nagpur- 441203 Maharastra, Pan – Aqmpk2899K V/S Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–3(4), Nagpur Assessee By: Shri.D.P. Lohiya.Ar Revenue By :Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri.D.P. Lohiya.ARFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 270A(9)Section 272(1)(d)Section 44ASection 50CSection 80C

capital gain under deeming provisions despite the fact that the amount pertained to regular real estate business activity. The basis of the assumption is not only arbitrary but also totally irrational having no nexus with the supporting evidences submitted by the assessee during the course of the proceedings before the authorities. 13.On the facts and circumstances of the case

KSHITIZ RAMPRASAD AGRAWAL,NAGPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms as indicated above

ITA 102/NAG/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur17 Jun 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Hirani a/wFor Respondent: Shri Anand Nagrale
Section 250Section 68

condone the delay of 379 days. However, subject to deposit a sum of ` 11,000, (Rupees eleven thousand only) within 15 days from the date of this order in the Revenue Department under the “Other Head”. 6. Coming to the merits of the case, it appears from the impugned order that in spite of affording four opportunities, the assessee made

LATE SHARAD SHANKAR KALE,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 5(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed as per the terms indicated above

ITA 511/NAG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad

For Appellant: Mrs. Anchal Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 250

gained by delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, adopting a justice oriented approach and also taking guidance from the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. [(1987) 2 SCC 107] and in the case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC

SHUBHANGI PRAVIN NIDHAN,NAGPUR vs. A.O., WARD 3(4), NAGPUR, NAGPUR

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

ITA 535/NAG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur15 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri.Krishnakumar Gupta.A.RFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.DR
Section 2(14)Section 250(6)Section 50C

delay is condoned and the appeals are admitted. 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee has not filed return of income for A.Y.2014-15 and the Assessing Officer has received information that the assessee along with eleven other co–owners have sole two properties during F.Y. 2013–14 and there is variation in the fair market value

SHUBHANGI PRAVIN NIDHAN,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 3(4), NAGPUR

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

ITA 545/NAG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur15 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri.Krishnakumar Gupta.A.RFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.DR
Section 2(14)Section 250(6)Section 50C

delay is condoned and the appeals are admitted. 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee has not filed return of income for A.Y.2014-15 and the Assessing Officer has received information that the assessee along with eleven other co–owners have sole two properties during F.Y. 2013–14 and there is variation in the fair market value

MOHD. SHAFI NAUSHAHI ,NAGPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INOCME TAX -IV , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 129/NAG/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.129/Nag/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Mohd. Shafi Naushahi, The Commissioner Of Plot No.194, Shahai Manzil, Vs Income Tax-Iv, Nagpur. Gumgaon Road, Dongaragaon, Nagpur. Pan: Adgpn2947L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Kailash G. Kanojiya – Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 22/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22 /11/2023

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 263

capital gain on sale of land was exempt. However, ld.CIT, Nagpur observed that assessee had never filed any purchase deed for the purchase of impugned land admeasuring 1.62 hectares. Assessee’s Name was not appearing in 7/12 extract of the land. As per 7/12 extract of the land, Mr.Wazare was the owner of the land. The assessee submitted that

SYED NAZIM MOINUDDIN QUAZI,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 2(3), NAGPUR, NAGPUR

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

ITA 503/NAG/2025[2020 - 2021]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesayed Nazim Maoinuddin Quazi, Pltono.11–A & House Noquadri Enclave, Opp. Suri Laws Behind Police Line Takli ……………. Appellant Nagpur 440 013, Maharashtra. Pan–Aaapq2442A V/S Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–2(3), Nagpur, Maharashtra. Assessee By:Ms.Alfiya Rozie, A.R. Revenue By :Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Ms.Alfiya Rozie, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted. 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee has filed return of income for the A.Y. 2020–21 on 31.12.2020 disclosing a total income of Rs.6,65,330/–. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and the assessee has disclosed long term capital gain