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.

14 results for “capital gains”+ Section 48clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai3,010 Delhi2,159 Bangalore950 Chennai623 Ahmedabad618 Kolkata533 Jaipur502 Hyderabad371 Chandigarh271 Pune257 Indore235 Karnataka170 Surat168 Cochin157 Visakhapatnam114 Raipur107 Nagpur95 Rajkot77 Panaji74 Calcutta61 Cuttack60 Amritsar54 Lucknow53 Guwahati49 SC40 Telangana35 Patna30 Agra22 Jodhpur20 Ranchi17 Allahabad14 Jabalpur14 Dehradun14 Varanasi9 Rajasthan8 Kerala7 Punjab & Haryana2 Orissa2 A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1 Andhra Pradesh1 ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1 A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 14818 Section 253(3)15 Section 143(2)13 Section 143(3)11 Addition to Income11 Section 153A10 Section 695 Section 50C5 Section 1544

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 48 of the 1961 Act for computing capital gains chargeable to tax. The aggregate sale consideration of the land

Condonation of Delay3

Rectification u/s 1543

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

Capital Gain' under section 48 of the Act. 12. BECAUSE the authorities below have erred in law and on 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

Section 48 mode of computation a capital gain has been provided that while calculating capital gains the cost of improvement

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

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

capital receipt and adjusted against expenses reducing the cost of the project 5. The learned CIT(Appeals) has committed a grave error of law in not appreciating the case laws cited by the assessee, which not only squarely covers the controversy but were also binding upon him. 6. The order passed by the CIT(A] is in teeth

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

48,75,000 unexplained expenditure 2009-10 55,00,000 Adv.recd from various persons 2.99 crore Transaction with Dr. Bansal 2,72,152 on account of capital gain 2010-11 10,55,000 unexplained expenditure 7,80,000 undisclosed expenditure 8,15,872 out of capital gain 2011-12 25,00,000 undisclosed transaction 5,00,000 undisclosed 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

48,75,000 unexplained expenditure 2009-10 55,00,000 Adv.recd from various persons 2.99 crore Transaction with Dr. Bansal 2,72,152 on account of capital gain 2010-11 10,55,000 unexplained expenditure 7,80,000 undisclosed expenditure 8,15,872 out of capital gain 2011-12 25,00,000 undisclosed transaction 5,00,000 undisclosed 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

48,75,000 unexplained expenditure 2009-10 55,00,000 Adv.recd from various persons 2.99 crore Transaction with Dr. Bansal 2,72,152 on account of capital gain 2010-11 10,55,000 unexplained expenditure 7,80,000 undisclosed expenditure 8,15,872 out of capital gain 2011-12 25,00,000 undisclosed transaction 5,00,000 undisclosed 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

48,75,000 unexplained expenditure 2009-10 55,00,000 Adv.recd from various persons 2.99 crore Transaction with Dr. Bansal 2,72,152 on account of capital gain 2010-11 10,55,000 unexplained expenditure 7,80,000 undisclosed expenditure 8,15,872 out of capital gain 2011-12 25,00,000 undisclosed transaction 5,00,000 undisclosed 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

48,75,000 unexplained expenditure 2009-10 55,00,000 Adv.recd from various persons 2.99 crore Transaction with Dr. Bansal 2,72,152 on account of capital gain 2010-11 10,55,000 unexplained expenditure 7,80,000 undisclosed expenditure 8,15,872 out of capital gain 2011-12 25,00,000 undisclosed transaction 5,00,000 undisclosed income

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

48,000/- from three house properties and after deducting house tax and claiming deduction under 24(a), a net income of Rs. 25,86,697/- had been disclosed under the head, ‘house property’. The ld. AO observed that in respect of two of the properties, the assessee had not let out the same on rent to any one person

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

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