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.

9 results for “capital gains”+ Section 57clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,183Delhi829Chennai268Bangalore245Ahmedabad220Jaipur217Chandigarh145Kolkata133Hyderabad121Cochin101Indore84Pune79Raipur77Nagpur51Surat46Panaji45Lucknow44Visakhapatnam27Rajkot23Amritsar22Cuttack14Jodhpur11Jabalpur10Patna10Agra9Dehradun7Guwahati6Ranchi4Allahabad3Varanasi2

Key Topics

Section 26318Section 143(3)10Section 1486Section 1476Addition to Income6Section 41(1)4Capital Gains4Section 50C(2)3Natural Justice3Section 143(1)

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 gain in view of the Karnataka High Court's decision referred to above. What Page 15 of 23 Tej Singh vs. ITO income is said to have been escaped does not find mention therein. Even assuming for the sake of argument, the income was liable to be taxed as short term gain unless there is any material before

YOGENDRA SHARMA,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ETAH

In the result, the appeal preferred by assessee is allowed

ITA 408/AGR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra19 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

: Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2012-13 Yogendra Sharma, I-4695, 2Nd Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Floor, Gali No. 4-B, Balbir Nagar Ward 3(2), Etah. Extension, Shahdara, Delhi. Pan :Cgkps6492J (Appellant) (Respondent)

2
Section 572
Cash Deposit2
Bench:
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50C

57,500/-. Further, the 2 | P a g e Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has declared Rs.4,50,000/- as gross business receipts. Accordingly, he added the difference of Rs.3,07,400/- to the total income of the assessee. Further, he determined the short term capital gains of Rs.2,32,800/- and observed that the capital gain declared

BRIJESH PODDAR M/S KRISHAN KANHAIYA TEXTILES,HATHARS vs. ITO WARD 4(3)(4), HATHRAS

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 528/AGR/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Agra03 Feb 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshshri Brijesh Poddar (Prop), Vs. Ito, M/S. Krishna Kanhiya Ward-4(3)(4), Poddar Textile, Hanuman Hathras Gali, Hathras, Up (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Azgpp1350B Assessee By : Shri Pankaj Gargh, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 03/02/2026

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Gargh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 57

capital gains. The assessee actually claimed deduction on account of interest expenditure on loan in the sum of Rs. 5,74,560 under Section 57

RAMESH CHANDRA SHARMA,ALIGARH vs. ITO WARD 1(5), ALIGARH

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 56/AGR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Agra10 Feb 2025AY 2011-12
For Appellant: \nSh. Pankaj Gargh, AdvFor Respondent: \nSh. Shalender Shrivastava, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 50C(2)

capital gain amounting to Rs.13,57,969/- made in\nthe course of assessment framed on 16.11.2018 as upheld in the lower\nappellate discussion, it emerges during the course of hearing that no\nreference u/s 50C(2) of the Act was made to DVO which has been held as\nmandatory in Sunil Kumar Agarwal

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

57,000/-), whereas the sale consideration received as per the Sale Deed is only Rs. 54,16,600/- (Rs. 22,50,100/- plus Rs. 31.66,500/-). Thus, the value of the 2 plots sold by the Assessee as co-owner u/s 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 amounts to Rs. 1,16,65,000/-, but the sale consideration received

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

57,000/-), whereas the sale consideration received as per the Sale Deed is only Rs. 54,16,600/- (Rs. 22,50,100/- plus Rs. 31.66,500/-). Thus, the value of the 2 plots sold by the Assessee as co-owner u/s 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 amounts to Rs. 1,16,65,000/-, but the sale consideration received

MARSHAL SECURITY SERVICES,AGRA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AGRA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 131/AGR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Oct 2025AY 2016-17
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250

gain. Also verification of properties sale transaction was\nalso the issue. Still this bench did not allow crossing the limit without obtaining\nprior permission.\nd) Sukhdham Infrastructure LLP v. Income Tax Officer (2024) 165\nTaxmann.com 154 (Kolkata Trib.)\nIssue:-There were four issues to verify (i) Interest Expenses (ii) Income from\nreal Estate Business (iii) Sales Turnover Mismatch

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

capital gain on sale of this silver bullion as the cost of silver bullion exceeds the sale price. Therefore, the assessee has not disclosed the sale of this silver bullion in her return of income. The assessee has sold some silver bullion through Shri Abhishek Bansal, the broker to unregistered persons. During the course of assessment proceedings, 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)

57,480/-. Assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny on the issue of sale consideration of properties in ITR, being less than the sale consideration reported in Form 26QB and high liabilities as compared to low income/receipts. Statutory notices were issued and served upon the assessee. Assessee submitted working of capital gains, arising out of sale of properties