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 220(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai555Delhi468Bangalore180Chennai172Jaipur134Ahmedabad132Karnataka118Kolkata90Hyderabad73Cochin61Indore56Raipur40Chandigarh37Pune37Panaji32Guwahati27Calcutta16Lucknow15Nagpur12Surat10Rajkot8Amritsar7Kerala6Telangana6Jabalpur6Cuttack6Visakhapatnam5Patna5Agra4SC4Ranchi3Rajasthan3Allahabad2Jodhpur1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)3Addition to Income3Deduction3Disallowance3Section 1472Section 362Cash Deposit2Reassessment2

SHRI SWAMI RAM SWAROOP SHARMA,MATHURA vs. ITO WARD 3(4), MATHURA

In the result, both the appeals are treated as allowed, for statistical purposes

ITA 16/AGR/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Agra09 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenakapil Sharma, Executor Of The Vs..Ito,3(4), Estate Of Late (Shri) Ram Swaroop Mathura. Sharma, Gandhi Marg, Vrindavan, Mathura. C/O R.M. Mehta S-125, Panchsheel Park (First Floor), New Delhi Pan:Anhps1936P (Revenue) (Assessee) Kapil Sharma, Executor Of The Vs..Ito,3(4), Estate Of Late (Shri) Ram Swaroop Mathura. Sharma, Gandhi Marg, Vrindavan, Mathura. C/O R.M. Mehta S-125, Panchsheel Park (First Floor), New Delhi Pan:Anhps1936P (Assessee) (Revenue)

2. The Department would have no objection to the above request. 3. Accordingly, in terms of Rule 26 of the ITAT Rules, 1963, this request is accepted. Necessary changes in the record be made, as such. This appeal has been filed against the CIT(A)’s order dated 18.01.2013, 4. deciding the appeal an ex parte qua the assessee, partly

SHRI SWAMI RAM SWAROOP SHARMA,MATHURA vs. ITO WARD-3(4), MATHURA

In the result, both the appeals are treated as allowed, for statistical purposes

ITA 146/AGR/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Agra
09 Jul 2018
AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenakapil Sharma, Executor Of The Vs..Ito,3(4), Estate Of Late (Shri) Ram Swaroop Mathura. Sharma, Gandhi Marg, Vrindavan, Mathura. C/O R.M. Mehta S-125, Panchsheel Park (First Floor), New Delhi Pan:Anhps1936P (Revenue) (Assessee) Kapil Sharma, Executor Of The Vs..Ito,3(4), Estate Of Late (Shri) Ram Swaroop Mathura. Sharma, Gandhi Marg, Vrindavan, Mathura. C/O R.M. Mehta S-125, Panchsheel Park (First Floor), New Delhi Pan:Anhps1936P (Assessee) (Revenue)

2. The Department would have no objection to the above request. 3. Accordingly, in terms of Rule 26 of the ITAT Rules, 1963, this request is accepted. Necessary changes in the record be made, as such. This appeal has been filed against the CIT(A)’s order dated 18.01.2013, 4. deciding the appeal an ex parte qua the assessee, partly

SHRI PUNEET BANGLA,AGRA vs. ITO 1(3), AGRA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 141/AGR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra30 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

Section 36Section 57

2. The Loan amount must be utilized for the purpose as indicated by the applicant in the loan application and the End Use of Funds letter and cannot be used for any other purposes. 3. The property described above must be self-occupied. 4. The property described above shall not be rented out/alienated/or possession thereof parted with by the applicant

M/S RAMESHTHA CONSTRUCTION,JHANSI vs. DY. C.I.T., CIRCLE-6, , JHANSI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 332/AGR/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra02 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaassessment Year - 2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 147

2. The assessee has received interest from banks on the FDR’s deposited by the assessee with various government department. These FDRs were deposited by the assessee with the government department as a condition for exhibiting the work and also for ensuring the performance of contract. The assessing officer was not convinced with the submission made by the assessee