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 51clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,197Delhi763Chennai256Bangalore255Ahmedabad237Jaipur214Hyderabad167Chandigarh156Kolkata131Raipur91Cochin77Indore73Pune69Nagpur52Surat50Rajkot36Visakhapatnam33Guwahati33Lucknow31Cuttack18Jodhpur17Amritsar7Jabalpur6Ranchi5Patna5Allahabad5Agra5Dehradun5Panaji4Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)5Section 41(1)4Addition to Income4Section 1483Capital Gains3Natural Justice3Section 682Section 69A2Section 242

SH. KULDEEP SRIVASTAVA,MATHURA vs. I.T.O., WARD-3(2), MATHURA

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 227/AGR/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Agra13 Feb 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 143(3)Section 24Section 24(3)Section 257Section 68

section 50C Rs. 1’41’66,357 Cost of property as computed in para 5.11.4 Rs. 1,11,22,002 Short term capital gain Rs. 30,44,355 5.12 In view of the above computation. I hold that the assessee(appellant) is lible for being assessed to tax under the Income Tax Act, 1961 under the head Short Term Capital

TEJ SINGH,MATHURA vs. ITO 1(3)(4), MATHURA

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 8/AGR/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Agra26 Sept 2023AY 2009-10
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

capital gains’ and remitting the matter to the file of ‘AO’ for verification of genuineness of purchase deed ignoring the fact that the purchase deed had been submitted as ‘additional evidence’ and remand report had been called from the ‘AO’ and the ‘AO’ had not raised any objection with regard to the genuineness while submitting remand report. Learned ‘CIT (Appeals

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

51,04,500 under section 69A read with section 115BBE of the Act. Now, the assessee is in appeal before your honour". While the appellant claimed that the cash deposited during the demonetization period was received from sale of Silver Bullion disclosed under IDS 2016 of Rs.1,57,25,908/-. The AO examined the details submitted and found that

SHARAD MAHESHWARI,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(2), GWALIOR (M. P.), GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 316/AGR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra30 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Sharad Maheshwari, Vs. Income Tax Officer, W-63, 3Rd Floor, Ward-3(2), Greater Kailash-2, Gwalior South Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Afepa7981H Assessee By : Shri Ashok Vijaywargiya, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/09/2025

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Vijaywargiya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

Section 68 of the Act for not proving the creditworthiness of the donor. 5. With regard to gift received from Smt Manju Agarwal, sister of the assessee in the sum of Rs 6,25,000/-, the assessee submitted that the said amount was transferred by Smt Manju Agarwal out of her personal funds accumulated in the bank account. The assessee

GINNI FILAMENTS LTD.,GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(1)(1), AGRA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 64/AGR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Agra26 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 41(1)

capital gains, arising out of sale of properties to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer. The only issue under dispute during the assessment year was with respect to the outstanding trade payable liability of Rs.34,45,60,149/- in respect of 119 parties out 257 sundry creditors. It appears from the perusal of assessment order and the impugned first appellate