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.

5 results for “capital gains”+ Section 234Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi393Mumbai355Bangalore206Jaipur120Hyderabad82Ahmedabad55Chennai40Pune37Indore27Nagpur25Kolkata23Visakhapatnam22Ranchi15Jodhpur12Karnataka12Chandigarh11Amritsar11Patna10Lucknow10Guwahati7Rajkot7Agra5Surat5Jabalpur4SC3Cuttack2Varanasi2Telangana1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1Panaji1Raipur1Dehradun1Allahabad1

Key Topics

Section 14812Section 143(2)9Section 1478Section 234A4Addition to Income4Natural Justice3Section 143(3)2Section 69A2Section 50C2Section 143

USHA AGARWAL,AGRA vs. ITO 4(4), AGRA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 167/AGR/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Agra19 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 50C

234A & 234B is either not chargeable or has excessively and incorrectly been charged.” Ground Nos. 1 to 3, challenge the CIT(A)’s action of upholding the 2. initiation of proceedings u/s 148 of the IT Act. 3. The following are the reasons recorded by the AO to form belief of escapement of income: “The information has been received from

NITESH AGARWAL,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(1)(3), AGRA

ITA 501/AGR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra20 Feb 2026
2
Long Term Capital Gains2
Deduction2
AY 2012-13

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Accoutant Member Nitesh Agarwal Vs Income Tax 29/81, Lakshmi Palace, Officer-2(1) (3), Namakkimandi, Agra- Agra 282003 Pan No Abnpa2197G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Anurag Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 148Section 178Section 234ASection 234BSection 250(6)

Capital Gain of Rs.9,02,439 /- in Return of Income filed which was filed electronically. BECAUSE, in any case and in any view of the matter impugned addition and impugned assessment order is bad in law, illegal, unjustified, contrary to facts and law based upon incorrect assumption of facts and further without allowing adequate opportunity of hearing in violation

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

RADHA GUPTA,KALA MAHAL, AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(1)(3), , AGRA

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 102/AGR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra17 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: : Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 69A

234A &234B is incorrectly charged.” 3. Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused. 2 | P a g e 4. It next emerges during the course of hearing with the able assistance coming from both the parties that the learned lower authorities have made section 69A addition of Rs.1,51,04,500/- in assessee’s hands thereby rejecting

GIREESH CHANDRA,ETAH vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1), ETAH, ETAH

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

ITA 264/AGR/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Agra26 Nov 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 54F

section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961 which was completed without complying with the requirement of law or taking proper approval. 3. That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (NFAC) has erred in law and on facts to uphold the impugned order passed by the learned Assessing Officer even when the assessing officer acted