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.

2 results for “capital gains”+ Section 254(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai473Delhi260Jaipur95Ahmedabad89Chennai84Surat80Bangalore70Cochin63Raipur48Kolkata47Hyderabad41Chandigarh40Indore26Pune19Nagpur19Rajkot16Lucknow10Amritsar10Jabalpur8Varanasi5Guwahati5Panaji5Jodhpur5Visakhapatnam2Cuttack2Agra2Allahabad1Ranchi1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)2Section 50C(2)2Addition to Income2

SANJANA GUPTA,JHANSI vs. ITO-WARD-2(3)(1) JHANSI, JHANSI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 433/AGR/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Agra21 Jan 2026AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshsanjana Gupta, Vs. Ito, 130, Gudri Bazar, Jhansi Ward-2(3)(1), Jhansi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Awbpg1536E Assessee By : Smt Prathna Jalan, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 21/01/2026 O R D E R

For Appellant: Smt Prathna Jalan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 254Section 50C(2)

capital gains. The ld DR on this count submitted that mere mentioning of wrong section would not invalidate the addition per se. To buttress this argument of the ld DR, the ld AR placed reliance on the decision of the Hon‟ble Jurisdictional Allahabad High Court, in the case of Smt Sarika Jain Vs. CIT reported in 84 taxmann.com

SHIV SINGH,AGRA vs. ITO WARD-6(2), JHANSI

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 157/AGR/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Agra13 Feb 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2007-08

Section 143(3)Section 151Section 254(1)Section 50C

section 50C addition as actual sale prices of Rs.5,00,000/- was very well less than the stamp price amounting to Rs.21,78,000/- and further reduced by the DVO to the tune of Rs.16,88,000/-, respectively. All this resulted in impugned long-term capital gain re-computation forming subject matter of adjudication before us. 5. We have given