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.

11 results for “capital gains”+ Section 127clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi663Mumbai562Bangalore223Jaipur209Karnataka167Chennai158Ahmedabad139Kolkata120Hyderabad84Cochin75Chandigarh72Indore60Pune52Calcutta52Raipur51Nagpur46Surat34Guwahati33Cuttack31Visakhapatnam27Rajkot22Lucknow19Amritsar11Agra10Telangana9Jodhpur6Panaji6SC5Allahabad4Rajasthan4Jabalpur2Dehradun2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 14824Section 14711Section 54B9Addition to Income9Section 143(3)7Section 1516Section 2635Deduction5Section 36(2)(i)4

SHRI NACHHATER SINGH S/O SHRI GURBAKSH SINGH,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICEER , BATHINDA

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 164/ASR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Jul 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

Section 148Section 151Section 546Section 54B

capital gain by adopting the rate as on 1.4.1981 and other grounds of appeals with regard to not allowing full deduction u/s 54B. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the CIT(A), the assessees before us for the ground mentioned above . Submissions of AR 8. AR had been submitted that notice issued under section 148 on the issue

SHRI BABBU SINGH S/O SHRI NACHHATER SINGH,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICEER WARD-2(1), BATHINDA

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Section 142(1)4
Reopening of Assessment4
Reassessment3
ITA 163/ASR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Jul 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

Section 148Section 151Section 546Section 54B

capital gain by adopting the rate as on 1.4.1981 and other grounds of appeals with regard to not allowing full deduction u/s 54B. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the CIT(A), the assessees before us for the ground mentioned above . Submissions of AR 8. AR had been submitted that notice issued under section 148 on the issue

SHRI.BOOTA SINGH S/O. SH. NACHATER SINGH, BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(1), BATHINDA

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 162/ASR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Jul 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

Section 148Section 151Section 546Section 54B

capital gain by adopting the rate as on 1.4.1981 and other grounds of appeals with regard to not allowing full deduction u/s 54B. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the CIT(A), the assessees before us for the ground mentioned above . Submissions of AR 8. AR had been submitted that notice issued under section 148 on the issue

SHRI BARJINDERPAL SINGH BHULLAR,MOHALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 1 (3), BATHINDA

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 672/ASR/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Ravish Sood & Dr. M. L. Meena

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Trilochan Singh PS Khalsa, DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

capital gain tax only when the same was so received, and not otherwise. Accordingly, the CIT(A) in terms of his aforesaid observations partly allowed the appeal. 5. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before us. At the very outset of the hearing of the appeal, it was submitted

SHRI BRIJINDERPAL SINGH BHULLAR,MOHALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 1 (3), BATHINDA

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 671/ASR/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Ravish Sood & Dr. M. L. Meena

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Trilochan Singh PS Khalsa, DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

capital gain tax only when the same was so received, and not otherwise. Accordingly, the CIT(A) in terms of his aforesaid observations partly allowed the appeal. 5. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before us. At the very outset of the hearing of the appeal, it was submitted

SHRIMATI. SAVITRI DEVI,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(1), BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 340/ASR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 55(2)(b)

section 55(2)(b) and 55A of Income Tax Act, respectively before calculating the Capital Gain and order of A.O require to be set-a-side.” 3. Brief fact of the case is that the assessee’s case was reopened u/s 147 on basis of information related to sale of land amount to Rs.40,89,010/-. The assessment was completed

SMT. GURJEET KAUR,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- IV (2),, JALANDHAR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our

ITA 627/ASR/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Ravish Sood & Dr. M. L. Meena

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sunil Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69Section 91

127, New Jawahar Nagar, Jalandhar (20%); (iv). Sh. Tushal Goyal S/o. Sh. Surinder Kumar Goyal, r/o. Sukhmoney Enclave, South Canal, Ludhiana (15%); and (v). Sh. Naveen Jain S/o. Sh. Tarsem Jain, r/o. Krishna nagar, Ludhiana (15%). Observing, that though the assessee had entered into an “agreement to sell” with Sh. Surjit Singh (supra), and in lieu thereof

SMT. GURJEET KAUR,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- IV (2),, JALANDHAR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our

ITA 628/ASR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Ravish Sood & Dr. M. L. Meena

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sunil Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69Section 91

127, New Jawahar Nagar, Jalandhar (20%); (iv). Sh. Tushal Goyal S/o. Sh. Surinder Kumar Goyal, r/o. Sukhmoney Enclave, South Canal, Ludhiana (15%); and (v). Sh. Naveen Jain S/o. Sh. Tarsem Jain, r/o. Krishna nagar, Ludhiana (15%). Observing, that though the assessee had entered into an “agreement to sell” with Sh. Surjit Singh (supra), and in lieu thereof

SMT. PARMINDER KAUR BRAR,KOTKAPURA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 72/ASR/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 263oSection 54

capital gain. So, theissuewas needed to be investigated. The assessee has claimed I.T.A. No.72/Asr/2022 5 Assessment Year: 2011-12 exemption u/s 54 amounting to Rs.22,84,849/-. The grievance of the ld. PCIT that the ld. AO had not raised any query to verify the genuineness of the exemption claimed nor verify as to whether the pre-requisite required being

BHAGAT PARKASH KAMAL SHARMA,JAMMU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1 (1), JAMMU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 184/ASR/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 127Section 127(2)Section 144Section 249(2)Section 250Section 68

127(2) of the Act dated 01.10.2019 and the current jurisdiction is fixed in ITO Ward-1(1), Jammu. Accordingly, the appeal order was passed by the NFAC. So, the appeal is under jurisdiction of ITAT, Amritsar Bench. I.T.A. No.184/Asr/2021 3 Assessment Year: 2013-14 4. Brief fact of the case is that the ld. AR informed that the appeal

MESERS AMARNARTH AGGARWAL BUILDERS PVT. LTD.,BATHINDA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 192/ASR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal &For Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 36(2)Section 36(2)(i)

section 36(2)(i) no deduction of bad 4 Amarnath Aggarwal B. P Ltd v. Dy.CIT doubtful debts. The assessee’s contention is that the assessee wanted to purchase the land in anticipation for financial gain in Panchkula and paid the amount accordingly. The assessee denied that he never claimed this amount