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.

5 results for “capital gains”+ Section 253(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai269Delhi220Ahmedabad86Chennai72Indore61Jaipur60Chandigarh47Bangalore43Kolkata34Lucknow26Hyderabad25Panaji17Ranchi15Surat14Pune13Raipur13Nagpur12Rajkot11Guwahati10Amritsar9Cochin8Varanasi6Agra5Visakhapatnam5Allahabad4Patna4Cuttack2Jodhpur1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)4Section 153A4Addition to Income4Section 693Section 253(3)3Condonation of Delay3

SARITA AGRAWAL,GWALIOR vs. ACIT, GWALIOR

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

ITA 170/AGR/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Agra14 Feb 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Sudhir Kumarmrs. Sarita Agrawal Acit Geeta Colony Aayakar Bhawan Dal Bazar, Gwalior- V. City Centre 474001 Gwalior-474001 Madhya Pradesh Madhya Pradesh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Adxpk3445P Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Sukesh Kumar Jain, CIT
Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 153A

3. Aggrieved ,the assessee filed first appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) issued as many as 11 notices during the course of appellate proceedings, but there was no compliance on the part of the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that assessee is not interested in prosecuting

CHANDRAPAL SINGH,MATHURA vs. INCOME TAX OFICER SHIVPURI, SHIVPURI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 114/AGR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra21 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 143(3)Section 253(3)Section 69

section 69 of Income tax Act, no addition is liable to be made, addition made by the AO, sustained by CIT Appeal is liable to be deleted. 3 That while making and sustaining the addition, the authorities below has not considered and appreciated the facts that the assessee is doing business since last so many years. The deposits made

CHANDRAPAL SINGH,MATHURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER SHIVPURI, GWALIOR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 113/AGR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra21 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 143(3)Section 253(3)Section 69

section 69 of Income tax Act, no addition is liable to be made, addition made by the AO, sustained by CIT Appeal is liable to be deleted. 3 That while making and sustaining the addition, the authorities below has not considered and appreciated the facts that the assessee is doing business since last so many years. The deposits made

CHANDRAPAL SINGH,MATHURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER SHIVPURI, SHIPURI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 115/AGR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra21 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 143(3)Section 253(3)Section 69

section 69 of Income tax Act, no addition is liable to be made, addition made by the AO, sustained by CIT Appeal is liable to be deleted. 3 That while making and sustaining the addition, the authorities below has not considered and appreciated the facts that the assessee is doing business since last so many years. The deposits made

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)

253 (SC) and the decision of Merino Ply and Chemicals Ltd. vs CIT (1994) 209 ITR 508 (Cal) and observed that in this case the grant received by the assessee was to discharge its trading liability and thus it constituted trading receipt and not capital receipts as claimed by the assessee. The AO held that the subject receipt was clearly