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.

31 results for “capital gains”+ Section 50clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,859Delhi1,335Chennai449Jaipur369Bangalore361Ahmedabad356Hyderabad316Kolkata261Chandigarh219Pune176Indore167Cochin134Surat108Raipur101Nagpur93Rajkot86Visakhapatnam63Lucknow56Amritsar41Patna32Dehradun31Guwahati28Cuttack28Jodhpur26Agra20Allahabad9Varanasi9Jabalpur6Ranchi6Panaji4

Key Topics

Section 143(3)34Section 801A28Section 26325Section 54B23Addition to Income23Section 14713Section 250(6)11Deduction11Business Income11

LAT SMT. SAROJ BANSAL,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3941/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun23 Jun 2023AY 2013-14
Section 147Section 54F

section 45(2) of the Act. vii. As stated earlier, the assessee had sold the subject mentioned property jointly with her daughter in law and the daughter in law has offered capital gains of her 50

SH. CHANDRA KANT CHAHAL,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 2813/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun22 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasada N D Shrim. Balaganesh

Shri Alok jain, Adv.; &

Showing 1–20 of 31 · Page 1 of 2

Section 153C10
Section 54F8
Capital Gains8
For Appellant:
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)Section 50C

section 147 of the Act vide order dated 29.12.2016 and, therefore, there cannot be a different valuation for the purpose of computing capital gains in the hands of the assessee. However, the ld. CIT (Appeals) rejected the claim of the assessee on the ground that the valuation report given by the DVO is not correct as he has reduced 50

SHRI ABHISHEK JOSHI,DEHRADUN vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8/DDN/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun15 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshshri Abhishek Joshi, Vs. The Pr. Cit, C/O. Parimal Patet, Gk Patet & Dehradun Co, 14 Abhishek Tower, Subhash Road, Dehradun (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ajopj4300M Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv Shri Somil Aggarwal, Adv Revenue By: Shri N. S. Jangpangi, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 26/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15/09/2023

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri N. S. jangpangi, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 54F

Section 263 on the basis of suspicions, surmises and conjectures. Shri Abhishek Joshi 3. That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. PCIT is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case, since opportunity of being heard in person not considered and without hearing the Assessee the order

OMWATI,DEHRADUN vs. PR.CIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6853/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun15 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshsmt. Omwati Pr. Cit W/O Sh. Dariyav Singh Dehradun 171/1, Vasant Vihar, Vs. Dehradun Pan-Aanpw 6438K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 54B

50,270/- showing capital gains at Nil. The assessee sold an agricultural land along with her husband Sh. Dariyav Singh and Sh. Sanjay Kumar during the year under consideration. The assessee had capital gains of Rs.35,08,250/- and from the sale proceeds of the said land, the assessee purchased another Page 3 of 12 Omwati vs. Pr. CIT agricultural

DIGVIJAY SINGH,DEHRADIM vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 117/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun28 Jun 2023AY 2016-17
Section 132Section 153C

50 lakhs each to Sh. Jagat Bhushan Batra. b. Rs. 1 crore representing cash payment to Sh. Jagat Bhushan Batra. 5. The learned CIT(A) deleted the cheque portion of Rs. 1 crore as it was not presented in the bank for encashment by the seller of the property, i.e., Jagat Bhushan Batra. 6. With regard to cash payment

DIGVIJAY SINGH,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 2336/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun28 Jun 2023AY 2015-16
Section 132Section 153C

50 lakhs each to Sh. Jagat Bhushan Batra. b. Rs. 1 crore representing cash payment to Sh. Jagat Bhushan Batra. 5. The learned CIT(A) deleted the cheque portion of Rs. 1 crore as it was not presented in the bank for encashment by the seller of the property, i.e., Jagat Bhushan Batra. 6. With regard to cash payment

ITO, WARD-1(1)(3), DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN vs. TRISHLA STEEL PVT LTD, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 188/DDN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

section 2(14). Accordingly, the AO is directed to delete\nthe addition of Rs.2,13,16,178 made Page 48 of 50 AAВСТ7938C-\nTRISHLA STEEL PVT LTD A.Y. 2017-18 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-\n26/1079069899(1) on account of sale of agricultural land under the\nhead Long Term Capital gain

DARIYAV SINGH,DEHRADUN vs. PR. CIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2029/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun28 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshsh. Sanjay Kumar Pr. Cit 170, Vasant Vihar-1 Dehradun Dehradun Vs. Pan-Akkpk 1007F (Appellant) (Respondent) Sh. Dariyav Singh Pr. Cit 28-Chakrata Road, Dehradun Dehradun Vs. Pan-Awkps 6026L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Dr. Rakesh Gupta & Mr. Sherey Jain, Advocates Respondent By Mr. N.S.Jangpangi, Cit-Dr

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 54B

50% of share of 1,60,00,000/-) and claimed deduction u/s 54B of the Act. The Ld. A.O. issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on 08/04/2014 for verification of correctness of the capital gain. In response to such notice, the assessee filed his return of income on 09/05/2014 showing the capital gains on sale of agricultural land

SANJAY KUMAR,DEHRADUN vs. PRCIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2187/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun23 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshsh. Sanjay Kumar Pr. Cit 170, Vasant Vihar-1 Dehradun Dehradun Vs. Pan-Akkpk 1007F (Appellant) (Respondent) Sh. Dariyav Singh Pr. Cit 28-Chakrata Road, Dehradun Dehradun Vs. Pan-Awkps 6026L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Dr. Rakesh Gupta & Mr. Sherey Jain, Advocates Respondent By Mr. N.S.Jangpangi, Cit-Dr

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 54B

50% of share of 1,60,00,000/-) and claimed deduction u/s 54B of the Act. The Ld. A.O. issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on 08/04/2014 for verification of correctness of the capital gain. In response to such notice, the assessee filed his return of income on 09/05/2014 showing the capital gains on sale of agricultural land

AKRAM,ROORKEE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE, HARIDWAR

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 6373/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun07 Jan 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Mayank Kumar, Addl. CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148

50 dated 10-06-2003. He therefore issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on 22.03.2016 which is stated to be duly served upon the assessee. Howerver the assessee did not respond to this notice. The AO thereafter issued a notice u/s 142(1), pointing out this fact and asking the assessee to show cause as to why the same

SH. IRSHAD ILAHI,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, W- 1(3), DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 80/DDN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun09 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2014-15 Irshad Ilahi, Income Tax Officer, 96 Colli Camp, Turner Road, Ward-1(3), Clement Town, Dehradun, Vs Dehradun Uttarkhand-248001 Pan-Acmpi0814J Appellant Respondent

Section 144Section 147Section 250

section 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961. 2. That in any case and in any view of the matter, the Learned CIT(A), NFAC has erred in law and on facts in passing a non speaking order in respect of submission made to the CIT(A) when physical appeals were being heard by the Jurisdictional CIT(A). 3. That

SH. DEVENDRA DUTT PANT,HARIDWAR vs. DCIT , UTTARKAHAND

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 149/DDN/2025[2106-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun14 Jan 2026AY 2106-2017

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Rana, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 54BSection 54E

capital gain at a sum of Rs. 1,50,95,314/-. While doing so, assessee had claimed a deduction under section

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SUBHASH ROAD DEHADUN vs. M/S TIMES SQUARE, SAHASTRADHARA ROAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 42/DDN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43CSection 69A

CAPITAL A/C\n630849.81 CLOSING STOCK\n49702307.00\nHDB FINANCIAL SERVICES\n(AS CERTIFIED BY PARTNERS)\n22500000.00\nHDFC LTD\n16000000.00 CASH IN HAND\n10789-16.00\nAXIS BANK\n2103284.16\nIDBI BANK\n2427220.00\nHDFC BANK\n50000.00\nUNSECURED LOAN\n100000.00\nIAS PER ANNEXURE B)\n9950000.00 KOTAK MAHINDRA\n\nCURRENT LIABILITIES\nLOANS & ADVANCES\n& PROVISIONS:\n1748596.48 CHEQUES IN HAND\n2250000.00\nSUNDRY CREDITORS\n28522350.00

SHRI CHHOTEY LAL VERMA,DEHRADUN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 3397/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun31 Jan 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(b)Section 250(6)Section 292C

section 292C. 2.2 there was a clear finding of fact recorded by the Ld. AO in the assessment order that the agreement to sell dated 14.10.2007 did not materialize which has either been totally ignored or not appreciated by the Ld. CIT(A). 2.3 that the Ld. CLT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that there

SHRI CHHOTEY LAL VERMA,DEHRADUN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 3396/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun31 Jan 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(b)Section 250(6)Section 292C

section 292C. 2.2 there was a clear finding of fact recorded by the Ld. AO in the assessment order that the agreement to sell dated 14.10.2007 did not materialize which has either been totally ignored or not appreciated by the Ld. CIT(A). 2.3 that the Ld. CLT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that there

RITA GOYAL,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), DEHRADUN

Appeal is allowed

ITA 3970/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun13 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Smt. Rita Goyal, H. No. 28, Sahastradhara Ward-2(2), Road, Dehradun, Dehradun Uttarakhand Pan :Ahypg4217C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Praveen Goyal, Self Department By Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr

Section 43CSection 50C

50 lakhs in total involving as may sale instances. Learned Assessing Officer’s assessment discussion reads that he firstly rejected the assessee’s claim declaring capital gains than business income; and, therefore, invoked section

SHRI PURAN SINGH VERMA,DEHRADUN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 3400/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun31 Jan 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250(6)Section 292C

capital gain earned has been surrendered in the return filed u/s 153A.He has disclosed total sale consideration of Rs.3,28,000/- on sale of khasra no. 317 i.e. 1/3 rd share during the year under assessment and remaining share has been surrendered by aditya verma and chottey lal verma in their returns of income. This means that total sale consideration

SHRI PURAN SINGH VERMA,DEHRADUN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 3401/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun31 Jan 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250(6)Section 292C

capital gain earned has been surrendered in the return filed u/s 153A.He has disclosed total sale consideration of Rs.3,28,000/- on sale of khasra no. 317 i.e. 1/3 rd share during the year under assessment and remaining share has been surrendered by aditya verma and chottey lal verma in their returns of income. This means that total sale consideration

SHRI ADITYA VERMA,DEHRADUN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 3399/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun31 Jan 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 132Section 153A(1)(a)Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 275(1)(a)Section 292C

Section. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble CIT(A) has erred in upholding the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act inter alia because- 3.1. The appellant had made full disclosure of all his income in the return filed in response to notice issued u/s 153A

SHRI ADITYA VERMA,DEHRADUN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 3398/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun31 Jan 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 132Section 153A(1)(a)Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 275(1)(a)Section 292C

Section. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble CIT(A) has erred in upholding the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act inter alia because- 3.1. The appellant had made full disclosure of all his income in the return filed in response to notice issued u/s 153A