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.

7 results for “capital gains”+ Section 40clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,577Delhi1,096Chennai400Jaipur321Bangalore321Ahmedabad320Hyderabad228Kolkata175Indore132Chandigarh128Cochin112Pune100Raipur98Nagpur76Rajkot75Surat74Visakhapatnam55Panaji38Amritsar37Lucknow31Guwahati28Patna20Dehradun20Cuttack19Jodhpur14Jabalpur13Agra11Ranchi10Varanasi8Allahabad7

Key Topics

Section 153A10Addition to Income7Section 1484Section 143(3)3Section 142(1)3Section 50C2Section 1472Natural Justice2

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

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

Section 153A

40-46 as added is highly unjustified. 4. That in any view of the matter addition of Rs.22,75,000/- as made by the assessing officer which was reduced to Rs.17,75,000/- by CIT(A) is highly unjustified and ld. CIT(A) was not correct in allowing only token relief when the transaction relate to before block period hence

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

Section 153A

40-46 as added is highly unjustified. 4. That in any view of the matter addition of Rs.22,75,000/- as made by the assessing officer which was reduced to Rs.17,75,000/- by CIT(A) is highly unjustified and ld. CIT(A) was not correct in allowing only token relief when the transaction relate to before block period hence

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

Section 153A

40-46 as added is highly unjustified. 4. That in any view of the matter addition of Rs.22,75,000/- as made by the assessing officer which was reduced to Rs.17,75,000/- by CIT(A) is highly unjustified and ld. CIT(A) was not correct in allowing only token relief when the transaction relate to before block period hence

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

Section 153A

40-46 as added is highly unjustified. 4. That in any view of the matter addition of Rs.22,75,000/- as made by the assessing officer which was reduced to Rs.17,75,000/- by CIT(A) is highly unjustified and ld. CIT(A) was not correct in allowing only token relief when the transaction relate to before block period hence

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

Section 153A

40-46 as added is highly unjustified. 4. That in any view of the matter addition of Rs.22,75,000/- as made by the assessing officer which was reduced to Rs.17,75,000/- by CIT(A) is highly unjustified and ld. CIT(A) was not correct in allowing only token relief when the transaction relate to before block period hence

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

40 taxman.com 450 (Allahabad) wherein the Hon’ble High Court had held that the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Amiya Bala Paul vs. CIT [2003] 262 ITR 407 (SC) had been nullified by the insertion of section 142A and therefore, additions could be made on the basis of reference made