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.

2 results for “capital gains”+ Section 55(2)(b)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,094Delhi1,688Bangalore785Chennai526Ahmedabad498Kolkata433Jaipur425Hyderabad295Chandigarh259Pune185Surat178Indore165Karnataka150Cochin137Raipur115Rajkot73Agra70Panaji67Nagpur60Calcutta56Cuttack56Visakhapatnam44Lucknow42Telangana31Amritsar30SC27Ranchi20Guwahati20Jodhpur9Patna9Kerala8Dehradun7Jabalpur6Rajasthan5Varanasi3Allahabad2Orissa2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Gauhati1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Andhra Pradesh1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1

Key Topics

Section 14810Section 143(2)8Section 143(3)4Section 50C2Section 1472Addition to Income2

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
Section 143(3)

55 /Alld/2020 for ay 2016-17 respectively, in memo of appeal(s) filed with Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad (hereinafter called “ the tribunal”) , reads as under : ITA no. 54/Alld/2020 for AY:2015-16 “1. The Id. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 6,80,71,611 received as interest from banks during the construction period which