Search: capital gains | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

8 results for “capital gains”+ Section 54clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,330 Delhi896 Chennai312 Bangalore284 Jaipur256 Ahmedabad249 Hyderabad176 Chandigarh135 Kolkata120 Pune109 Indore108 Cochin85 Raipur72 Nagpur66 Rajkot66 Surat59 Visakhapatnam42 Lucknow38 Guwahati23 Amritsar23 Dehradun19 Cuttack18 Patna16 Ranchi13 Jodhpur12 Agra8 Jabalpur6 Allahabad5 Varanasi2 Panaji1

Key Topics

Section 26318 Section 1478 Section 547 Section 1486 Section 50C5 Section 143(3)5 Section 143(1)5 Section 2504 Deduction4 Addition to Income

ALAUDDIN,AGRA vs. ITO, WARD 1(1)(1), AGRA, AGRA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 241/AGR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra20 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 2(14)Section 250Section 54

54 of the Act shows that this section provides exemption from capital gains tax if the capital gains arise from

PRIYAVRAT SHARMA,AGRA vs. ITO WARD 1(1)(2), AGRA

3

Long Term Capital Gains2

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 355/AGR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Agra26 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 50C

54, Ganesh Nagar, Lawyers Bhawan, Sanjay Place, Colony, Agra 282 005 Agra- 282 002 U.P. PAN : AIVPS1077J (Appellant)(Respondent) Assessee by Shri K.K. Jain, Adv. Department by Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing 15/10/2025 26.11.2025 Date of pronouncement ORDER PER : SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal has been preferred on behalf of the assessee against the order

SMT. SARIKA SRIVASTAVA,AGRA vs. PCIT-1, AGRA, AGRA

The appeals of the assessees are allowed in above terms

ITA 56/AGR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra30 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: : Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

54,16,600/-) was to be brought to tax. Half share of the Assessee as co-owner of the properties amounted to Rs. 31,24,200/- and this amount i.e. the difference between the Sale Consideration disclosed as per the Sale Deed and the full value of the consideration received u/s 50C amounting

SHRI ATUL SRIVASTAVA,AGRA vs. PCIT-1, AGRA, AGRA

The appeals of the assessees are allowed in above terms

ITA 57/AGR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra30 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: : Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

54,16,600/-) was to be brought to tax. Half share of the Assessee as co-owner of the properties amounted to Rs. 31,24,200/- and this amount i.e. the difference between the Sale Consideration disclosed as per the Sale Deed and the full value of the consideration received u/s 50C amounting

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

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

LATA SHARMA,AGRA vs. CIT (APPEALS), NFAC, DELHI

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

ITA 55/AGR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra04 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2012-13]

Section 144Section 50CSection 54

Section 50C amounting to Rs.39,11,000/- during the relevant year. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had not filed a return for the year under consideration, and it was also noted that the long-term capital gains from this transaction had not been declared for taxation. The assessment in this case was completed

MOHD ARIF,ETAWAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2)(5), ETWAH, ETAWAH

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

ITA 271/AGR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2016-17] Mohd. Arif, Income Tax Officer, 68, Huiganj Pachraha, Etawah, Ward-2(2)(5), Income Tax Office, Etawah, Uttar Pradesh-206001 Vs Civil Lines, Etawah, Uttar Pradesh-207001 Pan-Anapa8542J Appellant Respondent

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 282Section 54Section 56(2)(vii)

capital gain by taking the cost of acquisition at Rs. NIL on the ground that the assessee had not disclosed this transaction in his return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer also show-caused to make another addition of Rs.97,14,000/- by invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) on the ground