Search: capital gains | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases 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.

23 results for “capital gains”+ Section 14clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai5,823 Delhi4,629 Bangalore1,932 Chennai1,626 Kolkata1,281 Ahmedabad1,206 Jaipur940 Hyderabad851 Pune704 Surat558 Chandigarh505 Indore412 Karnataka402 Cochin285 Visakhapatnam253 Raipur235 Nagpur181 Rajkot180 Cuttack148 Amritsar133 Agra123 Lucknow110 Panaji88 SC87 Guwahati87 Telangana84 Calcutta84 Jodhpur54 Dehradun54 Ranchi49 Patna45 Jabalpur24 Allahabad23 Kerala21 Varanasi20 Orissa8 Rajasthan7 Punjab & Haryana4 A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2 Gauhati2 Andhra Pradesh2 Himachal Pradesh1 ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1 D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1 MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1 A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1 K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1 ANIL R. DAVE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1

Key Topics

Section 14824 Addition to Income20 Section 143(2)19 Section 143(3)17 Section 253(3)15 Section 14711 Section 153A10 Section 119 Section 2(15)9

M/S GANGA NURSING HOME,,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT,, ALLAHABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 186/ALLD/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad10 Sept 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 50C

section 2(14)(iii) of the Act and is not a capital asset and hence capital gains as worked out by assessing

Showing 1–20 of 23 · Page 1 of 2

Condonation of Delay4

SURENDRA KUMAR MISHRA,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT, CIR-2, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 140/ALLD/2023[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad10 Feb 2025AY 2002-03

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2002-03 Surendra Kumar Mishra, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of 794A/1, Sohabatiyabagh, Income Tax, Circle-2, Allahabad Allahabad-211006, U.P. Pan:Aibpm4858R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Ashish Bansal, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.02.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Under Section 250 R.W.S. 254 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 26.10.2023. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Are As Under:- “1. Because The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Dismissing The 'Additional Ground' Relating To Non-Issuance Of Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The Act, Raised Before The Appellate Authority During The Course Of First Round Of Litigation, Which Has Been Remanded Back By The Hon'Ble Itat In Terms Of Order Dated 09.11.2012, By Observing That The Return Filed By The Appellant In Terms Of Letter Dated 10.11.2008 As Not A Valid Return In Compliance To Notice Dated 11.02.2008 Issued Under Section 148 Of The Act, As The Said Letter Was Filed By The Appellant After The Time Limit Of 30 Days Provided To Do So In Terms Of Notice Dated 11.02.208 Issued Under Section 148 Of The Act. 2. Because The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Observing That The Appellant Could Not Have Demand For Issuance Of Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The 1 Surendra Kumar Mishra

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250Section 69C

14. BECAUSE 'surplus' arising out of 'transfer' of 'Capital asset', without prejudice to the contention raised in grounds no. 8 to 13 above, should have been subjected to assessment as 'long term capital gain', instead of 'short terms capital gain' as has been made/upheld by the 'Authorities below'. 15. BECAUSE the order appealed against, is contrary to facts

SANJAY MAJUMDAR,ALLAHABAD vs. PR. CIT, ALLAHABAD

ITA 68/ALLD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad28 Jan 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2012-13 Mr. Sanjay Majumdar, V. The Principal Commissioner Type Ii – 112, Devprayagam Of Income Tax, Sangam Vatika – Jhalwa, Aayakar Bhawan, Allahabad 211012 38, M.G. Marg, Civil Lines, Allahabad 211001 Pan: Adopm 2688P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Basudev Banerjee, CAFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Chanda, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 154Section 263

capital gains earned by assessee had escaped assessment , which had led to reopening of the concluded assessment by Revenue within the provisions of Section 147/148 of the 1961 Act. The income of the assessee as re-assessed by ld. Assessing Officer( hereinafter called “ the AO”) , to the tune of Rs. 36,84,950/-, vide reassessment order dated 24.06.2016 , which reassessment

AJAY KUMAR GUPTA,FATEHPUR vs. CIT(A), NFAC, DELHI (AO:ITO-2(4),FATEHPUR, FATEHPUR

In the result, appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

ITA 19/ALLD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad20 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Kumar Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Singh ,Sr. D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 50C

gain on stamp duty value which is totally arbitrary and against law and fact. 4. That the Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals) erred not to consider that the learned assessing officer erred not to consider the reply dated 05.11.19 in response to notice dated 01.11.19 under section 142(1). 5. That the Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals) erred not to consider that

MEJA URJA NIGAM (P) LTD.,ALLAHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE WARD-2 (2), ALLAHABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for ay: 2015-16 and 2016-17

ITA 54/ALLD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad03 Mar 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Ms.Namita S. Pandey, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Parv Agrawal, CA

Section 14 of the Act lays down that for the purpose of computation, income of an assessee has to be classified under six heads: (A) Salaries. (B) Interest on securities. (C) Income from house property. (D) Profits and gains of business or profession. (E) Capital

SHOBHA RASTOGI,ALLAHABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, ALLAHABAD

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

ITA 47/ALLD/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad13 Aug 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2008-09 Smt. Shobha Rastogi, V. Deputy Commissioner Of Income 30-A, M.G. Marg, Civil Lines, Tax, Circle-1, Allahabad, U.P. Allahabad, U.P. Pan-Afqpr4774R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Mr. Praveen Godbole, C.A. Respondent By: Mr. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.08.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.08.2021

For Appellant: Mr. Praveen Godbole, C.AFor Respondent: Mr. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50C

gain by applying the provisions of section 50C of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer has not quantified the income assessable to tax that has escaped assessment while recording the reasons for reopening of the assessment. Therefore, in the absence of the quantification of the income at the time of recording the reasons, the Assessing Officer was not having

KAILASH JAISWAL,GORAKHPUR vs. ACIT(C.C.), ALLAHABAD

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

ITA 29/ALLD/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad21 Nov 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria, Ju Dicial Member

capital gain 2011-12 25,00,000 undisclosed transaction 5,00,000 undisclosed income 2012-13 7,71,250 rough & dumb document 10,00,000 undisclosed expenditure 6 crore unexplained investment 2.2 The present appeals have been filed by the assessee against the aforesaid impugned appellate orders of learned CIT(A). In the course of appellate proceedings before the Income

KAILASH JAISWAL,GORAKHPUR vs. ACIT (CC), ALLAHABAD

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

ITA 26/ALLD/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad21 Nov 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria, Ju Dicial Member

capital gain 2011-12 25,00,000 undisclosed transaction 5,00,000 undisclosed income 2012-13 7,71,250 rough & dumb document 10,00,000 undisclosed expenditure 6 crore unexplained investment 2.2 The present appeals have been filed by the assessee against the aforesaid impugned appellate orders of learned CIT(A). In the course of appellate proceedings before the Income

KAILASH JAISWAL,GORAKHPUR vs. ACIT(C.C.), ALLAHABAD

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

ITA 28/ALLD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad21 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria, Ju Dicial Member

capital gain 2011-12 25,00,000 undisclosed transaction 5,00,000 undisclosed income 2012-13 7,71,250 rough & dumb document 10,00,000 undisclosed expenditure 6 crore unexplained investment 2.2 The present appeals have been filed by the assessee against the aforesaid impugned appellate orders of learned CIT(A). In the course of appellate proceedings before the Income

KAILASH JAISWAL,GORAKHPUR vs. ACIT(CC), ALLAHABAD

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

ITA 47/ALLD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad21 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria, Ju Dicial Member

capital gain 2011-12 25,00,000 undisclosed transaction 5,00,000 undisclosed income 2012-13 7,71,250 rough & dumb document 10,00,000 undisclosed expenditure 6 crore unexplained investment 2.2 The present appeals have been filed by the assessee against the aforesaid impugned appellate orders of learned CIT(A). In the course of appellate proceedings before the Income

KAILASH JAISWAL,GORAKHPUR vs. ACIT(CC), ALLAHABAD

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

ITA 68/ALLD/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad21 Nov 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria, Ju Dicial Member

capital gain 2011-12 25,00,000 undisclosed transaction 5,00,000 undisclosed income 2012-13 7,71,250 rough & dumb document 10,00,000 undisclosed expenditure 6 crore unexplained investment 2.2 The present appeals have been filed by the assessee against the aforesaid impugned appellate orders of learned CIT(A). In the course of appellate proceedings before the Income

AROTI GHOSH,ALLAHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1), ALLAHABAD

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

ITA 23/ALLD/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad04 Jun 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 69

gain arising from the transfer of a long term capital assets being equity shares in a company is exempted under section 10(38) of the Income tax Act, 1961. 9. BECAUSE the NFAC has erred in law and on facts in sustaining addition of Rs.4,23,000/- made by invoking the provision of section 69 on account of net receipts

RAJESH KUMAR JAISWAL,,ALLAHABAD vs. DEPUTY/ACIT(CENTRAL), ALLAHABAD

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

ITA 16/ALLD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad02 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: the query raised by the assessing authority vide questionnaire issued under section 142 (1) dated 23.01.2021, in assessment proceedings for the AY 2018-19.

For Appellant: Sh. Nikhil Agarwal & Ms. VidishaFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR

Section 115Section 115BSection 142Section 24Section 250Section 68Section 69

capital gains tax on it .It had then been submitted by the assessee that this consideration had partly been paid in cash and partly been paid in gold and silver. Ld Sr DR further submitted that but for this chance finding at the premises of the other party, the matter would never have been disclosed. It was further submitted that

MADHURENDRA NATH,ALLAHABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALLAHABAD

In the result, both the appeals in ITA No

ITA 16/ALLD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad16 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri. Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2013-14 Vs. The Asstt. Commissioner Of Smt. Neeta Nath, L/H Of Lt. Dr. Jitendra Nath Income Tax, Central Circle, Civil Lines, Allahabad B/401, Mayan Enclave, 49/13, Clive Road, Allahabad Pan-Abepn1795Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Madhurendra Nath, Vs. The Asstt. Commissioner Of B-502, Vinayak Le Grande, Income Tax, Central Circle, 16/12, Lal Bahadur Shastri Civil Lines, Allahabad Road, Allahabad-211001 Pan-Aaipn8161D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh. Siddharth Pathak, Adv Respondent By: Sh. Rabin Chaudhari, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.02.2023 O R D E R Shri Vijay Pal Rao, J.M.: These Two Appeals By The Two Related Assessees Are Directed Against Two Separate Orders Of The Cit(A), Both Dated 28.04.2016 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. These Appeals Are Arising From The Assessment Orders Passed Under Section 153C In Pursuant To The Search & Seizure Action Under Section 132(1) Of The Income Tax Act, Dated 05.12.2013 In The Case Of Shri. Hemant Kumar Sindhi. Therefore, The Facts & Circumstances As Well As The Grounds Of Appeal

For Appellant: Sh. Siddharth Pathak, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rabin Chaudhari, CIT DR

Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 153C

14. We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. The Assessing Officer in para 3 of the assessment order, which has been reproduced in the foregoing part of this order has clearly stated that after recording satisfaction in writing, a notice under section 153C of the Act dated 5.9.2014 was issued and duly served

SMT. NEETA NATH L/H OF LATE DR. JITENDRA NATH,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALLAHABAD

In the result, both the appeals in ITA No

ITA 15/ALLD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad16 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri. Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2013-14 Vs. The Asstt. Commissioner Of Smt. Neeta Nath, L/H Of Lt. Dr. Jitendra Nath Income Tax, Central Circle, Civil Lines, Allahabad B/401, Mayan Enclave, 49/13, Clive Road, Allahabad Pan-Abepn1795Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Madhurendra Nath, Vs. The Asstt. Commissioner Of B-502, Vinayak Le Grande, Income Tax, Central Circle, 16/12, Lal Bahadur Shastri Civil Lines, Allahabad Road, Allahabad-211001 Pan-Aaipn8161D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh. Siddharth Pathak, Adv Respondent By: Sh. Rabin Chaudhari, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.02.2023 O R D E R Shri Vijay Pal Rao, J.M.: These Two Appeals By The Two Related Assessees Are Directed Against Two Separate Orders Of The Cit(A), Both Dated 28.04.2016 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. These Appeals Are Arising From The Assessment Orders Passed Under Section 153C In Pursuant To The Search & Seizure Action Under Section 132(1) Of The Income Tax Act, Dated 05.12.2013 In The Case Of Shri. Hemant Kumar Sindhi. Therefore, The Facts & Circumstances As Well As The Grounds Of Appeal

For Appellant: Sh. Siddharth Pathak, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rabin Chaudhari, CIT DR

Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 153C

14. We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. The Assessing Officer in para 3 of the assessment order, which has been reproduced in the foregoing part of this order has clearly stated that after recording satisfaction in writing, a notice under section 153C of the Act dated 5.9.2014 was issued and duly served

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)

Capital gains" and claims that the loss or any part thereof should be carried forward under sub-section (1) of section 72, or sub-section (2) of section 73, or sub-section (1) [or sub-section (3)] of section 74, [or sub-section (3) of section 74A], he may furnish, within the time allowed under sub-section (1) [***], a return

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)

Capital gains" and claims that the loss or any part thereof should be carried forward under sub-section (1) of section 72, or sub-section (2) of section 73, or sub-section (1) [or sub-section (3)] of section 74, [or sub-section (3) of section 74A], he may furnish, within the time allowed under sub-section (1) [***], a return

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)

Capital gains" and claims that the loss or any part thereof should be carried forward under sub-section (1) of section 72, or sub-section (2) of section 73, or sub-section (1) [or sub-section (3)] of section 74, [or sub-section (3) of section 74A], he may furnish, within the time allowed under sub-section (1) [***], a return

DCIT, CIRCLE-II , ALLAHABAD vs. BHARAT PUMPS & COMPRESSORS LTD, ALLAHABAD

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue for ay: 2007-08 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 148/ALLD/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad12 Aug 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Ms. Tanu Singhal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Shantanu Dhamija, CIT (DR)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(va)

capital in nature. These are also not illegal payments. Accordingly, additions so made (Rs. 96,26,000+Rs. 29,02,000) are hereby deleted.” 5. Now it was the turn of Revenue to be aggrieved by the decision of ld. CIT(A) allowing assessee’s appeal on this issue and the Revenue has filed this appeal with tribunal. The appeal

DCIT, CIRCLE-II , ALLAHABAD vs. BHARAT PUMPS & COMPRESSORS LTD, ALLAHABAD

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue for ay: 2007-08 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 147/ALLD/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad12 Aug 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Ms. Tanu Singhal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Shantanu Dhamija, CIT (DR)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(va)

capital in nature. These are also not illegal payments. Accordingly, additions so made (Rs. 96,26,000+Rs. 29,02,000) are hereby deleted.” 5. Now it was the turn of Revenue to be aggrieved by the decision of ld. CIT(A) allowing assessee’s appeal on this issue and the Revenue has filed this appeal with tribunal. The appeal