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.

7 results for “capital gains”+ Section 142(1)(iii)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai701Delhi462Jaipur255Hyderabad166Chennai138Ahmedabad138Kolkata131Bangalore129Chandigarh112Pune93Indore92Cochin69Rajkot63Raipur60Surat56Visakhapatnam54Nagpur38Lucknow30Guwahati30Jodhpur18Cuttack12Allahabad12Ranchi10Patna10Amritsar9Panaji9Agra7Dehradun7Varanasi6

Key Topics

Section 26318Section 143(3)6Section 1475Section 1485Section 142(1)4Section 544Section 2503Addition to Income3Section 143(2)2Long Term Capital Gains

ALAUDDIN,AGRA vs. ITO, WARD 1(1)(1), AGRA, AGRA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 241/AGR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra20 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 2(14)Section 250Section 54

section 151 of the Act. The statutory notice dated 31.03.2021 issued u/s. 148 and subsequent notice issued u/s. 142(1) with questionnaire dated 15.11.2021 stood un-responded by the assessee. The assessee, however, submitted his reply dated 20.02.2022 in response to notice u/s. 142(1) dated 24.12.2021, which as per Assessing Officer, was not found satisfactory. Thereafter, show cause notice

2
House Property2
Deduction2

M/S CHATTA SUGAR CO. LTD,MATHURA vs. A.C.I..T CIRCLE-3, MATHURA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 129/AGR/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Agra01 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2009-10]

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 28Section 41(1)

iii) The grant received for cane price payment worth Rs. 17,44,85,000 and the same has been treated by the company as revenue grant, but as per our opinion, it should be capital receipt. Hence profit for the year is overstated by Rs.17,44,85,000." 2.1. The AO vide notice dated 10.11.2011 issued under section 142(1

SATISH PRAKASH AGARWAL,AGRA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2)(1), AGRA, AGRA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 113/AGR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra07 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 since the unsecured loans were utilized for making investment in the partnership firm from where income in the form of interest and remuneration was earned and offered for tax in the income-tax return. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

MARSHAL SECURITY SERVICES,AGRA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AGRA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 131/AGR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Oct 2025AY 2016-17
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250

142 (1) shall\nremain confined only to the specific reasons/ issues for which case has been\npicked up for scrutiny.\n(iii) To overcome this issue of elasticity in application of instruction,CBDT made\ncertain provisions. To prevent revenue leakage, AOs are allowed to convert\nlimited scrutiny to complete scrutiny and this power is allowed to them after\nfollowing certain

SMT. SARIKA SRIVASTAVA,AGRA vs. PCIT-1, AGRA, AGRA

The appeals of the assessees are allowed in above terms

ITA 56/AGR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra30 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: : Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

III. I have examined the case record in your case for A.Υ. 2012-13 and on examination of the case record several issues have emerged, which are discussed hereunder: 3 | P a g e ITA No.56 & 57/Agr/2022 1. It is seen from the record that the Assessee sold 2 properties (as co- owner along with her husband Dr. Atul

SHRI ATUL SRIVASTAVA,AGRA vs. PCIT-1, AGRA, AGRA

The appeals of the assessees are allowed in above terms

ITA 57/AGR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra30 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: : Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

III. I have examined the case record in your case for A.Υ. 2012-13 and on examination of the case record several issues have emerged, which are discussed hereunder: 3 | P a g e ITA No.56 & 57/Agr/2022 1. It is seen from the record that the Assessee sold 2 properties (as co- owner along with her husband Dr. Atul

RAKESH DUBEY,KATRA MOHOLLA OLD BUS STAND ASHOKNAGAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS , NFAC DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 41/AGR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)(iii)Section 250

gain on the sale of the aforesaid property. The Assessing Officer, therefore, initiated proceedings u/s. 147 by issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 31.03.2021, which stood un-responded. Thereafter, notices u/s. 142(1) were issued to the assessee on 08.02.2022 and 18.02.2022, which were served upon the assessee, but for no avail. The Assessing Officer further, vide notice