BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI 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.

4 results for “capital gains”+ Section 127(2)(a)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi656Mumbai561Bangalore215Jaipur201Karnataka167Chennai142Ahmedabad139Kolkata118Hyderabad81Cochin75Chandigarh75Pune62Indore59Calcutta52Raipur51Nagpur36Surat34Guwahati33Cuttack32Visakhapatnam26Lucknow19Rajkot13Amritsar11Agra10Telangana9Jodhpur6Panaji6SC5Rajasthan4Allahabad4Jabalpur2Dehradun2Ranchi2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 253(3)15Section 143(3)7Section 1484Section 1543Condonation of Delay3Rectification u/s 1543Section 1472

TRIVENI GLASS LIMITED,ALLAHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(3) , ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee in ITA no

ITA 19/ALLD/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad14 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao& Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Ms. Tanu Singhal, CAFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh,Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 253(3)

127 Interest provided on U.P. Safety Glass 5,90,985.59 Page 126 I.C.D. upto 31.03.2011 73,01,827.59 5.2 The ld. CIT(A) rejected the contentions of the assessee and upheld the additions to the income made by the AO vide assessment order dated 27.03.2015 u/s 143(3) of the 1961 Act passed by Assessing Officer , by holding as under

TRIVENI GLASS LIMITED,ALLAHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(3), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee in ITA no

ITA 21/ALLD/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad14 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao& Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Ms. Tanu Singhal, CAFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh,Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 253(3)

127 Interest provided on U.P. Safety Glass 5,90,985.59 Page 126 I.C.D. upto 31.03.2011 73,01,827.59 5.2 The ld. CIT(A) rejected the contentions of the assessee and upheld the additions to the income made by the AO vide assessment order dated 27.03.2015 u/s 143(3) of the 1961 Act passed by Assessing Officer , by holding as under

TRIVENI GLASS LIMITED,ALLAHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(3), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee in ITA no

ITA 20/ALLD/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad14 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao& Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Ms. Tanu Singhal, CAFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh,Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 253(3)

127 Interest provided on U.P. Safety Glass 5,90,985.59 Page 126 I.C.D. upto 31.03.2011 73,01,827.59 5.2 The ld. CIT(A) rejected the contentions of the assessee and upheld the additions to the income made by the AO vide assessment order dated 27.03.2015 u/s 143(3) of the 1961 Act passed by Assessing Officer , by holding as under

OM PRAKASH SINGH,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, , ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 114/ALLD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad27 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Udayan Das Gupta & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Om Prakash Singh, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of 147A/2, Tagore Town, J.L.N. Income Tax, Central Circle, Road, Allahabad, U.P. Allahabad, U.P. Pan:Aiepp0574G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Ashish Bansal, Adv Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.12.2024 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-, Lucknow-3, Dated 11.07.2023 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred Are As Under:- “1. Because Proceeding Under Section 147 Of The Act By Issuance Of Notice Dated 30.03.2021 Under Section 148 On The Basis Of D.V.O. Report His Only Erroneous & Bad, Assessment Order Dated 23.03.2022 Passed In Consequence Of Said Proceeding Is Wholly Without Jurisdiction, Accordingly, The Entire Proceeding In Consequence Of Notice Dated 30.03.2021 Are Vitiated & Not Maintainable. Without Prejudice To The Aforesaid 2. Because The Addition Of Rs.9,26,796/- Made By The Ld. Assessing Officer On Account Of Alleged Difference In The Valuation Of Office Building Between The Value Appearing In The Audited Books Of Account As Compared To The Valuation Made By The D.V.O., As Also Confirm By The Id. Cit(A), Is Wholly Erroneous As The Report Of The Valuation Officer Is An Estimate & The Same

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Bansal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

2), Saharanpur and ACIT vs. Harpreet Hotels (Pvt.) Ltd,. He also relied on Income Tax Officer vs. Kaaddu Jaygyhosh Appasaheb. It was further submitted that charging the same to tax in the manner provided under section 115BBE were incorrect and needed to be deleted. Thereafter, the ld. CIT(A) placed reliance on the following decisions to hold that the valuation