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 194clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai456Delhi359Bangalore185Karnataka123Jaipur103Ahmedabad92Kolkata84Chennai74Chandigarh64Calcutta50Hyderabad40Cochin39Raipur36Pune36Amritsar25Guwahati21Indore20Telangana16Cuttack13Surat13Lucknow12SC7Jodhpur7Dehradun5Rajasthan5Visakhapatnam4Allahabad4Nagpur4Patna3Agra2Panaji2Rajkot1Kerala1Andhra Pradesh1Varanasi1Ranchi1

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)

194 for the year 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12. It was submitted that credit notes were issued on 30.04.2011 and 31.03.2012 respectively during the financial year ended 31.03.2012. It was submitted that copy of ledger account of M/s. Bawa Float A.Ys.2012-13 & 2013-14 Glass Ltd for the period of 01.01.2010 to 31.07.2012 ,and copy of credit

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)

194 for the year 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12. It was submitted that credit notes were issued on 30.04.2011 and 31.03.2012 respectively during the financial year ended 31.03.2012. It was submitted that copy of ledger account of M/s. Bawa Float A.Ys.2012-13 & 2013-14 Glass Ltd for the period of 01.01.2010 to 31.07.2012 ,and copy of credit

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)

194 for the year 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12. It was submitted that credit notes were issued on 30.04.2011 and 31.03.2012 respectively during the financial year ended 31.03.2012. It was submitted that copy of ledger account of M/s. Bawa Float A.Ys.2012-13 & 2013-14 Glass Ltd for the period of 01.01.2010 to 31.07.2012 ,and copy of credit

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

capital gains in that particular case). Therefore, it has held that there is no substance in the plea that the ld. AO could not have taken the valuation report into account. The Hon’ble Court held that what was necessary to be adjudicated, was about the existence of relevant material which formed foundation of a belief and constituted reasons