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.

35 results for “condonation of delay”+ Short Term Capital Gainsclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai416Chennai341Kolkata217Delhi153Ahmedabad145Hyderabad123Jaipur118Bangalore112Karnataka103Chandigarh85Pune70Surat50Calcutta46Nagpur35Panaji35Indore30Visakhapatnam24Lucknow24Raipur22Rajkot19Agra13Cuttack11Ranchi9Cochin9SC9Amritsar7Jodhpur6Patna6Guwahati6Jabalpur5Varanasi5Dehradun3Allahabad3Telangana2Andhra Pradesh1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1

Key Topics

Section 153C85Section 153A37Section 143(3)28Section 6826Section 50C24Addition to Income24Section 25020Condonation of Delay17Section 263

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

short term capital gain. Further the assessee has a good case on merits and prayed for granting of opportunity to substantiate the case with evidences and information before the lower authorities. Per–contra, the learned Departmental Representative relied on the order of the CIT(A). 7. Heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The sole grievance

Showing 1–20 of 35 · Page 1 of 2

12
Section 14812
Long Term Capital Gains9
Natural Justice9

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

short "the Act") for the A.Y. 2014–15 and 2015–16. Since the issues in these five appeals are common and identical, hence they are clubbed, heard and a consolidated order is passed. For the sake of convenience, the appeal in ITA no.544/NAG/2025, for the A.Y. 2014–15 is taken as lead case and facts narrated. 2. At the time

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

short "the Act") for the A.Y. 2014–15 and 2015–16. Since the issues in these five appeals are common and identical, hence they are clubbed, heard and a consolidated order is passed. For the sake of convenience, the appeal in ITA no.544/NAG/2025, for the A.Y. 2014–15 is taken as lead case and facts narrated. 2. At the time

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

short "the Act") for the A.Y. 2014–15 and 2015–16. Since the issues in these five appeals are common and identical, hence they are clubbed, heard and a consolidated order is passed. For the sake of convenience, the appeal in ITA no.544/NAG/2025, for the A.Y. 2014–15 is taken as lead case and facts narrated. 2. At the time

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

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

short "the Act") for the A.Y. 2014–15 and 2015–16. Since the issues in these five appeals are common and identical, hence they are clubbed, heard and a consolidated order is passed. For the sake of convenience, the appeal in ITA no.544/NAG/2025, for the A.Y. 2014–15 is taken as lead case and facts narrated. 2. At the time

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

short "the Act") for the A.Y. 2014–15 and 2015–16. Since the issues in these five appeals are common and identical, hence they are clubbed, heard and a consolidated order is passed. For the sake of convenience, the appeal in ITA no.544/NAG/2025, for the A.Y. 2014–15 is taken as lead case and facts narrated. 2. At the time

SMT REHANA KOTHAWALA ,NAGPUR vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 93/NAG/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur12 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Smt. Rehana Kothawala Vs. Acit, Circle M/S Supreme Marketing 4, Nagpur Sevasadan Building, C.A. Road, Nagpur – 440018 Pan: Ackpk1825F Appellant Respondent

condoning the delay of 37 days in presenting the appeal. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee filed her return declaring total income of Rs.29,38,080. The Assessing 2 Rehana Kothawala Officer (AO) converted the offered long term capital gain into short

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

short-term capital gain & without giving benetit of cost of acquisition by the Ld. AO in the absence of purchase deed while the assessee had specifically stated that he had inherited the ancestral property alongwith his 2 sisters & 3 legal heir of brother. 4. The Ld. AO could have called for the valuation of said land from

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

short "the Act"). The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:– “1. The order passed u/S 250 and U/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is illegal, invalid and bad in law. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) (NFAC) has erred in upholding the action

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

short extension of time for filing reply. Time was allowed twice to the assessee. The ld. PCIT recorded that finally no compliance / reply was received from assessee. The ld. PCIT on considering the material on record was of the view that from the submission furnished by assessee during assessment, it is seen that assessee claimed that on sale of asset

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 and claimed exemption u/sec

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

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

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

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

SHIVPRASAD SHEVADE,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 4(4), BSNL RTTC BUILDING, NAGPUR

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by assessee are allowed

ITA 370/NAG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy(Physical Hearing) Shivprasad Shevade, Ito, Ward-4(4), Plot No. 80, Attadeep Nagar, Vs Bsnl Rttc Building, Seminary Near Juni Vasti Manewada, Nagpur, Hills, Nagpur, Nagpur, Maharashtra – 440027. Mharashtra–440033. [Pan: Eqops0368M] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 144Section 147Section 254(1)

short-term capital gains, without appreciating the fact that: • The land in question had been sold in earlier years, • Possession had already been handed over prior to FY 2014-15; • Only the registered deeds were executed in FY 2014-15: • Consideration was received in earlier years; • Appellant had no role in some of the transactions considered by the AO. Shivprasad

NIMSHASKIYA MADHYANIK SHALEY KARAMCHARI SAHAKARI SANSTHA LTD.,WARDHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, WARDHA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 156/NAG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek KumarFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 143(2)Section 56(2)(d)

condone the delay of 22 days in filing the present appeal and admit the same for adjudication on merit. 4. In its appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds:– “1. Whether the Ld. AO and CIT(A) is correct in disallowing a sum of Rs. 3,27,687/- from deduction claimed under Sec 80P as interest income on deposit nationalized

MULCHAND JAGANATH RAGIT,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 3(4), NAGPUR

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

ITA 454/NAG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri.Abhay Agrawal. A.RFor Respondent: Shri.Surjit Kumar Saha. Sr. D.R
Section 148Section 45

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed the return of income for the A.Y. 2016–17 on 10/08/2016 disclosing a total income of Rs.6,80,910/-.The Assessing Officer has received information that the assessee along with 7 others has sold agricultural lands and this fact

PRAMOD AGRAWAL ,NAGPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, NAGPUR

Accordingly, the grounds of appeal 2 & 3 are dismissed

ITA 43/NAG/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur19 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Vikram Singh Yadav & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Sh. Pramod Agrawal (Huf) Pr. Cit-2, 301, Sai Ankur Apartments Nagpur-440 001 Ramdaspeth Vs. Nagpur-440 010 Pan:Aaihp 2699N (Respondent) (Appellant)

Section 10Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263

condoned. 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and reopened u/s 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short) on the reason that, the assessee has claimed LTCG exemption under section 10 in ITR in respect of Capital Gain trading in a Penny Stock Company. Accordingly, a notice

ANNUVA INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(4) NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 84/NAG/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur23 Sept 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryannuva Infrastructure Pvt. Ito, Ward-4(4), Nagpur. Ltd., Plot No.1249, Near Sindhu Bhawan, Vs. Vaishali Nagar, Nagpur-440017. Pan: Aahca 0371 L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Moriyani, Ld. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Ld. Sr.D.R
Section 131Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

short, ‘Act’) for the A.Y. 2011-12. 2 2. At the outset, it is observed that there is a delay of 252 days in filing the instant appeal, on which, the Assessee by filing an application for condonation of delay along with duly sworn affidavit has claimed as under: - “1. The deponent/assessee has received ex-parte order