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 583(4)(a)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai127Delhi108Karnataka103Agra62Cochin61Bangalore56Kolkata35Ahmedabad29Chandigarh24Pune18Hyderabad17Chennai12Jaipur10Indore4Rajkot3SC3Panaji3Visakhapatnam2Amritsar2Patna2Telangana2Rajasthan1Guwahati1Dehradun1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Lucknow1

Key Topics

Section 10(37)4Section 153C3Section 143(2)3Section 250(6)2Section 143(3)2Addition to Income2

SHRI KANAV KHANNA,,AMRITSAR. vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, AMRITSAR.

In the result, the ground no- G of appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 77/ASR/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar04 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Sh. R. K. Magow, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rahul Dhawan, CIT-DR
Section 10(37)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194LSection 250(6)

Capital Gain of Rs. 5,12,87,410/- in respect of 77 Maria from Khasra No. 1034/3 has been denied exemption and thereby Income Tax liability of Rs. 1,07,59,391/- has been demanded along with Education Cess of Rs.3,22,782/- besides interest of Rs. 5,04,468/- u/s 234B and Rs. 11,71,148/- u/s 234D

GURU NANAK MILK PRODUCTS ,FEROZEPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

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

ITA 132/ASR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar09 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

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

Section 132Section 133Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153BSection 153CSection 250(6)

583 to 585/Asr/2019 ITA 151/Asr/2021, ITA 183/Asr/2021 and ITA 41 to 43/Asr/2022 are allowed.” 7.1 It is mentioned in written submission that the assessee is doing the milk product so, the land was required to maintain the life stock and the processing of milk. Therefore, the assessee invested in different land for his business purpose. The ld. AR invited