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.

4 results for “capital gains”+ Section 153clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai942Delhi800Bangalore278Jaipur242Chennai227Chandigarh183Hyderabad157Ahmedabad146Karnataka143Kolkata105Cochin100Indore94Pune82Raipur56Visakhapatnam46Guwahati43Nagpur35Surat35Lucknow30Calcutta20Amritsar17Rajkot12Jodhpur9Dehradun8SC8Telangana8Ranchi5Agra4Cuttack4Rajasthan3Allahabad3Varanasi2Patna2K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1Jabalpur1Gauhati1Panaji1Andhra Pradesh1ANIL R. DAVE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1

Key Topics

Section 143(2)8Addition to Income4Section 1473Section 1483Section 50C2Section 50C(2)2Section 143(3)2Section 1432Section 292B2Reassessment

SHRI SIYARAM YADAV,MAINPURI vs. ITO 2(5), MAINPURI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 117/AGR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Agra25 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 292BSection 50CSection 68

capital gains tax made by the A.O. at Rs. 17,38,000/- on the basis of stamp value under section 50C pending valuation report from the departmental valuer sought by A.O. is illegal and arbitrary.” 2. Apropos Ground No.2, according to the assessee, as is clear from the assessment order, no notice

2
Capital Gains2

BALDEV SINGH BHADORIYA,GWALIOR vs. ITO-3(2), GWALIOR

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

ITA 37/AGR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra04 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing) Smt Kiran Lata Bhadoria, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- L/H Of Late Shri Baldev 3(2), Singh Bhadoria, Gwalior Mig-20, Darpan Colony, 474005, Mp (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ahopb3071D Assessee By : Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv Shri Deepesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/12/2025

For Appellant: Shri Somil Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(vii)

gains, income from other sources and income from business and profession. During the year under consideration, the Assessee has purchased an agricultural land measuring 5.874 hectares situated at village Baretha, Patwari, Halka 101, Vikaskhand-Morar on 12-08-2014. On perusal of the Smt Kiran Lata Bhadoria purchase deed, it was noticed that purchase consideration of the property has been

SANJAY CHOBEY,JHANSI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-2(3)(1), JHANSI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 140/AGR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra02 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: : Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaassessment Year: 2013-14 Vs. Acit, Circle –2(3)( 1), Dr. Sanjay Chobey, (Huf) Opp. Ware House, Shivpuri Aayakar Bhawan, Road, Nandpura, Jhansi 1090, Civil Lines, Pan : Aahhd7844 Q Jhansi (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 50CSection 50C(2)

capital gain u/s 50C(2)(a) of the Act. We find that the assessee has requested the AO to refer the matter to the valuation officer as per provisions of Section 50C(2)(a) of the Act. The assessee counsels contention that the assessee has sold the property under distress sale being sub urban and undeveloped area without basic amenities

AGRA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,AGRA vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1, AGRA

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 216/AGR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Agra17 May 2021AY 2011-12
Section 124Section 142Section 153

153, may kindly be declared as invalid. 2. Because the La CITA) erred, both in law and on facts in holding that the appellant is engaged in commercial activities by virtue of section of the I.T. Act, as amended from 01.04.2009. Ld CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the appellant is carrying on non commercial activities and enjoying registration