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.

5 results for “capital gains”+ Section 145(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai425Delhi193Jaipur121Bangalore102Ahmedabad86Chandigarh78Chennai73Hyderabad69Cochin61Kolkata45Raipur42Surat25Pune23Lucknow21Nagpur19Indore17Visakhapatnam12Jodhpur10Patna8Cuttack6Amritsar5Rajkot5Allahabad5Ranchi4Dehradun3Agra2Panaji2Jabalpur1Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)11Section 26310Addition to Income5Section 1444Section 145(3)4Section 250(6)3Section 682Section 69A2Section 44A2

POONAM MARWAHA,AMRITSAR vs. ACIT DCIT CEN CIR, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 306/ASR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar09 Jan 2025AY 2019-20
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 69

145 taxmann.com 590 (Calcutta) HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA Principal\nCommissioner of Income-tax v.ReetaLakhmani*\nSection 10(38), read with section 263, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Capital gains - Income\narising from transfer of long term securities (Penny stock shares) - Assessment year 2014-\n15 - Whether before exercise of power under section 263 it is Principal Commissioner\nwho has to apply

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(5), JALANDHAR vs. SHRI NITIN PAL SINGH , JALANDHAR

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

ITA 46/ASR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

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

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 250(6)Section 68

section 145(3) of the Act. Conclusion drawn by learned CIT(A) that “there is no infirmity in the proceedings adopted by AssessingOfficer and assessment order passed by Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Act is valid” is bad in law & as such illegal. 2. (a) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, Learned Commissioner of Income

SHRI. NITIN PAL SINGH ,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(3), JALANDHAR

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

ITA 65/ASR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

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

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 250(6)Section 68

section 145(3) of the Act. Conclusion drawn by learned CIT(A) that “there is no infirmity in the proceedings adopted by AssessingOfficer and assessment order passed by Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Act is valid” is bad in law & as such illegal. 2. (a) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, Learned Commissioner of Income

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, FARIDKOT, BSNL BUILDING vs. M/S VOHRA SOLVEX PVT. LTD, SADIQ ROAD

In the result, C.O. filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 588/ASR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar29 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, A.R
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250(6)Section 69C

2,43,78,214/- from M/s Evergreen Sales Corporation, Fazilka) 6.10 Accordingly, addition of Rs. 5,86,710/- (i.e. 1.2% of Rs. 4,88,92,578) is upheld out of the total addition of Rs.6,43,54,912/-.” 6. Regarding the issue of reopening of assessment u/s 148 of the Act which has been challenged by the assesee before

SHRI MOHD MANZOOR,RAJOURI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -2 (3), JAMMU

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

ITA 166/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Amritsar21 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

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

Section 144Section 250oSection 28Section 44ASection 69A

145 J&K Bank 0145 02.08.2016 16500.00 Page 26 and 17 Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the order of the AO ignoring the fact that credits to the tune of Rs. 15,062,500/- were on account of contra entries as explained above. As such, the CIT(A) has erred in applying 8% on alleged credits