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.

5 results for “capital gains”+ Section 50Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai98 Delhi32 Chennai23 Raipur18 Kolkata16 Bangalore14 Hyderabad6 Amritsar5 Ahmedabad5 Cochin4 Karnataka4 Telangana3 Pune3 Nagpur2 SC2 Indore2 Visakhapatnam1 Calcutta1 Surat1 A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1

Key Topics

Section 35A20 Section 143(3)12 Section 2638 Deduction5 Section 2504 Section 1544 Set Off of Losses4 House Property3 Section 1482 Section 271(1)(c)

MAX FINANCIAL SERVICE LIMITED ,NAWANSHAHR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is therefore partly allowed

ITA 121/ASR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 Mar 2021AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Deepak ChopraFor Respondent: Smt.Prabhjot Kaur, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 263

capital gain earned on the same as per the relevant provisions of section 50B of the Act. Copy of No objection

MESERS EMBROCIA FARMS PVT LTD,PATHANKOT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, PATHANKOT

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is (in ITA No

ITA 561/ASR/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar

2

Long Term Capital Gains2

13 May 2019

AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. Nos. 561/Asr/2018 & 284/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Sh. Tarsem Lal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C

capital gain could not be separately computed. Qua the first issue, the ld. CIT(A) held that the issue being now raised was not the subject matter of appeal and, consequently, not adjudicated u/s. 250 in the first instance. As regards the second ground, the same raised a contentious issue, i.e., which was debatable and, thus, outside the purview

M/S EMBROCIA FARMS PVT LTD. ,PATHANKOT vs. D.C.I.T, CIRCLE-6,, PATHANKOT

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is (in ITA No

ITA 284/ASR/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 May 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. Nos. 561/Asr/2018 & 284/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Sh. Tarsem Lal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C

capital gain could not be separately computed. Qua the first issue, the ld. CIT(A) held that the issue being now raised was not the subject matter of appeal and, consequently, not adjudicated u/s. 250 in the first instance. As regards the second ground, the same raised a contentious issue, i.e., which was debatable and, thus, outside the purview

INCOME TAX OFFICER, FEROZEPUR vs. MS.JATIN AGRO, FORT ROAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 104/ASR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 103 & 104/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18 Ito, Ward-3(1), Vs. M/S Jatin Agro Fort Road, Ferozepur. 152-P, Ferozepur. [Pan:-Aarpm5393F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Sh. Ashray Sarna, Ca Appellant By Respondent By Sh. Sunil Gautam, Cit. Dr

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 35A

gain from the business within the meaning of section 28(1) of the Act , because in the instant case, the presence of business activity is totally absent. 7.1 The Ld. DR further submitted that in the instant case, PUNGRAIN has also treated the amount paid to the assessee in the nature of rent and has deducted TDS under the provisions

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1),FEROZEPUR, FEROZEPUR vs. MS.JATIN AGRO, FORT ROAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 103/ASR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 103 & 104/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18 Ito, Ward-3(1), Vs. M/S Jatin Agro Fort Road, Ferozepur. 152-P, Ferozepur. [Pan:-Aarpm5393F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Sh. Ashray Sarna, Ca Appellant By Respondent By Sh. Sunil Gautam, Cit. Dr

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 35A

gain from the business within the meaning of section 28(1) of the Act , because in the instant case, the presence of business activity is totally absent. 7.1 The Ld. DR further submitted that in the instant case, PUNGRAIN has also treated the amount paid to the assessee in the nature of rent and has deducted TDS under the provisions