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.

6 results for “capital gains”+ Section 49clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,434Delhi1,940Bangalore798Chennai546Kolkata420Ahmedabad356Jaipur330Hyderabad229Chandigarh164Indore102Pune97Cochin88Raipur87Nagpur70Calcutta60Karnataka57Lucknow51Rajkot46Surat42SC34Visakhapatnam31Guwahati24Amritsar22Telangana22Cuttack22Patna13Jodhpur13Jabalpur11Kerala8Varanasi7Agra6Dehradun6Rajasthan5Allahabad5Ranchi3Orissa2Andhra Pradesh2K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Himachal Pradesh1Panaji1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 1475Section 270A4Section 143(3)4Addition to Income4Section 2503Section 143(2)2Section 502Section 482Section 50C2Capital Gains

YOGENDRA KUMAR GUPTA,GWALIOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1) GWL, GWALIOR

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

ITA 176/AGR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra12 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 48Section 50

Section 50(C) of the Income Tax Act. The addition made, computing the long term capital gain by the AO, sustained by the NFAC is liable to be deleted." 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income for the impugned assessment year ,on 02.08.2017 , declaring total income of Rs. Nil. Return was processed

2
Deduction2

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)

gains under Case I of Schedule D". 5.3 Thus, when subsidy is received from a public fund and these are to assist the assessee to carry on or business, the object of subsidy is apparent i.e. to enable the assessee to run business more profitably, become more competitive etc. These are operational subsidies and not capital subsidies. The source from

SHRI DAUJI RAM ,ALIGARH vs. ITO 1(4), ALIGARH

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 698/AGR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra13 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: : Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 147Section 50C

section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. We, accordingly, proceeded ex parte against the assessee. 3. Learned DR vehemently argued during the course of hearing that both the lower authorities have rightly added the difference between the assessee’s actual

KISHOR KUMAR GARG,JOURA ROAD, MORENA vs. ACIT, GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 363/AGR/2025[201718]Status: DisposedITAT Agra21 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshkishor Kumar Garg, Vs. Acit, Joura Road, Morena, Gwalior, Circle-3(1), Mp Gwalior (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Acopg5428J Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 21/01/2026

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 270A

capital gains. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 29.12.2019 determining the total income at ₹49,18,900/-. In the said assessment, the ad hoc disallowances @10% of repairs to machinery and compensation to employees were made as under: – Repairs of machinery Rs.5,06,892/- Compensation to Employees Rs.7,89,000/- Total

ACIT CIRCLE-2(1), GWALIOR vs. SHRI SANDEEP TAORI, GWALIOR

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 15/AGR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Agra12 Feb 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Sh. Sukesh Kumar Jain, CIT, DRFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, CA
Section 143(3)

Section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’]. 2. Coming to the Revenue’s sole substantive grounds seeking revival of addition of Rs.9,49,52,660/- made in the assessment framed herein by the Assessing Officer dated 26.12.2011, learned CIT-DR seeks to postpone the hearing that the necessary final status

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

49,800/-. 3. Aggrieved, assessee filed an appeal before learned CIT(Appeals), who dismissed assessee’s first appeal for want of details of improvement in property and other supporting documents to justify his claim. In such circumstances, learned CIT(Appeals) confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer, vide assessment order dated 19.11.2018. 4. Assessee preferred this second appeal