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.

4 results for “capital gains”+ Section 145clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai774Delhi547Bangalore247Ahmedabad199Jaipur191Chennai189Kolkata159Hyderabad123Karnataka121Chandigarh100Cochin85Agra73Calcutta54Indore52Pune49Raipur48Cuttack45Surat37Nagpur31Lucknow30Visakhapatnam19Amritsar14Jodhpur13Guwahati13Ranchi12SC12Patna10Rajkot9Telangana6Panaji6Allahabad5Jabalpur4Rajasthan3Dehradun3Andhra Pradesh1Punjab & Haryana1Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 2633Section 143(3)2Section 56(2)(vii)2Section 254(1)2Section 54B2Deduction2Revision u/s 2632

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, SATNA vs. SMT. SEEMA BHATTACHARYA, SATNA

ITA 225/JAB/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur08 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Sapan Usrethe, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 254(1)Section 54B

section 254(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) in the captioned appeals was passed on 05/08/2022. It is, however, found that there have occurred certain omissions in the said order, which are, therefore, hereby sought to be rectified through this corrigendum order. The same being only correction of those errors, do not therefore per se cause

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, SATNA vs. SMT. JHARNA BHATTACHARYA, SATNA

ITA 226/JAB/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur
08 Aug 2022
AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Sapan Usrethe, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 254(1)Section 54B

section 254(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) in the captioned appeals was passed on 05/08/2022. It is, however, found that there have occurred certain omissions in the said order, which are, therefore, hereby sought to be rectified through this corrigendum order. The same being only correction of those errors, do not therefore per se cause

SHARAD KUMAR AGRAWAL,JABALPUR vs. ITO, CHHATARPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 81/AGR/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur19 Sept 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y.-2012-13 Sharad Kumar Agrawal, Chhatarpur Vs Ito, Chhatarpur Jewellers, Madhya Pradesh Pan:Aaspa9540R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Rahul Bardia, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. N.M. Prasad, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148

capital gain was already covered in or 3. The Ld CIT (A) erred in sustaining the order of the Ld AO, when the approval granted by Ld PrCIT is defective. 4. The Ld CIT (A) erred in sustaining the order of the Ld AO, when the approval granted by Ld PrCIT is defective. 1 A.Y.- 2012-13 Sharad Kumar Agrawal

RITA MANCHHANI ,JABALPUR vs. PR. CIT-1 JABALPUR, JABALPUR

In the result, the assessee‘s appeal is dismissed on the afore-said terms

ITA 19/JAB/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur29 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon‘Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Bardia, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(vii)

section 50C of the Act more so when the said provision is not applicable on the facts of the present case. Therefore, the AO is directed to take sale value as Rs. 16,00,00,000/- for calculation of capital gain. Therefore, the appeal on this ground is allowed.‘ Again, as apparent, the same has been on the basis that