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.

3 results for “capital gains”+ Section 292Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi82Bangalore60Mumbai33Jaipur26Chennai15Kolkata13Nagpur11Ahmedabad7Hyderabad6Pune6Indore5Visakhapatnam5Lucknow5Patna5Raipur3Chandigarh3Amritsar2Cochin2Dehradun2Allahabad1Calcutta1Rajkot1SC1Karnataka1

Key Topics

Section 14811Section 54F7Section 54B3Section 692Addition to Income2

ITO, W-4, PANCHKULA vs. SMT. SEEMA BISHNOI, PANCHKULA

In the result appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 103/CHANDI/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargthe Ito Vs. Smt. Seema Bishnoi Ward-4, Panchkula H.No. 906, Sec-08, Panchkula

For Appellant: Shri. A.K. Jindal, CAFor Respondent: Shri. G.S. Phani Kishore, CI TDR
Section 148Section 54BSection 54F

capital gains. He invested the sale consideration in construction of residential house and claimed exemption under sections mentioning sections 54B, 54D and 54F in the return. The Assessing Officer denied exemption claimed on ground that assessee had mentioned wrong sections while claiming exemption. Held where due to ignorance wrong section had been mentioned by assessee in return. On appeal

BALBIR SINGH S/O SH. DHARAM SINGH,MOHALI vs. ITO, KHANNA

In the result, both the captioned appeals are hereby allowed

ITA 567/CHANDI/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Garg**

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. N.D.Gupta, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 148

capital gain at Rs. 76,12,500/-.* - *5. That the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in adopting the sale consideration on the basis of so called alleged sale agreement, which is not reliable at all.* - *6. That the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in not admitting the additional ground of appeal, which

INCOME TAX OFFICER, CHANDIGARH vs. CHARANDEEP SINGH, CHANDIGARH

Accordingly, the C.O. is dismissed as not pressed

ITA 197/CHANDI/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Mar 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Sh. Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. D.R
Section 148Section 292BSection 69

Section 292B of the Act.\n\n3. Whether the NFAC has erred in law by setting aside the\nfindings of the AO and deleting the addition of Rs.\n1,87,50,000/- made u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961\nas the same remained unexplained during the\nassessment proceedings in that there are no evidences or\nfindings that