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.

8 results for “capital gains”+ Section 2(31)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai3,910Delhi2,867Bangalore1,273Chennai991Kolkata727Ahmedabad581Jaipur482Hyderabad375Karnataka249Pune233Chandigarh232Surat201Indore195Cochin125Raipur125Rajkot98Nagpur85Agra83Calcutta70Lucknow70SC61Panaji53Telangana48Visakhapatnam46Cuttack44Amritsar40Guwahati35Patna32Dehradun24Jodhpur17Kerala10Rajasthan9Varanasi9Jabalpur8Ranchi8Allahabad5Orissa3A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2Punjab & Haryana2Andhra Pradesh2K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1

Key Topics

Section 26313Section 143(1)7Section 143(3)5Section 271(1)(c)5Section 263(2)4Section 114Limitation/Time-bar4Revision u/s 2634Addition to Income

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR vs. MADHYA PRADESH POWER GENERATING CO. LTD., JABALPUR

In the result, the Revenue's appeal is dismissed as not maintainable

ITA 251/JAB/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur23 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Bardia, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Halder, DR
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 271(1)(c)

31,814/- however rejected expenses of Rs.2,38,29,432/- which is not correct. After considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the AO is not justified in levying penalty of Rs.71,48,830/- as all the information has been reflected in the audit report and the appellant has not concealed

3
Section 43C2
Section 1152
Penalty2

RAI SAHAB BHAIYALAL DUBEY EDUCATIONAL AND MEDICAL CHARITABLE TRUST,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), JABALPUR

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 186/JAB/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur10 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11ASection 12ASection 143(1)

31,730/-. 3. Aggrieved against the same, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A)dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee by following various case laws mentioned at page no.7 to 11 of the CIT(A)'s order. Aggrieved against the appellate order, the assessee is before us by raising the following grounds of appeal

AMBIKA CHARAN DIXIT,JABALPUR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JABALPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 37/JAB/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur24 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

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

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43C

2. Income from real estate business 3. Sundry creditors 4. Large increase in sundry creditors with respect to turnover as compared to preceding year 5. Large increase in sundry creditors and reduction in business income as compared to preceding year 6. Low Capital gain with respect to sale consideration (higher or AIR and ITR). 3. The assessment

SURESH UPADHYAY AND SONS,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(5),

In the result, the appeals by the assessee‟s are dismissed

ITA 21/JAB/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur08 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Dhiraj Ghai, FCAFor Respondent: Shri U.B. Mishra , CIT-DR
Section 263Section 263(2)

31, ascertained. At this stage, the Bench, allowing time, required the parties to respond qua the recent decision by the Apex Court in CIT v. Mohammed Meeran Shahul Hameed [2021] 438 ITR 288 (SC). Per the same, it has been clarified by the Apex Court, in the context of s. 263(2), that the date of receipt of the order

SMT. ANURADHA UPADHYAY,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(5),

In the result, the appeals by the assessee‟s are dismissed

ITA 22/JAB/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur08 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Dhiraj Ghai, FCAFor Respondent: Shri U.B. Mishra , CIT-DR
Section 263Section 263(2)

31, ascertained. At this stage, the Bench, allowing time, required the parties to respond qua the recent decision by the Apex Court in CIT v. Mohammed Meeran Shahul Hameed [2021] 438 ITR 288 (SC). Per the same, it has been clarified by the Apex Court, in the context of s. 263(2), that the date of receipt of the order

SURESH UPADHYAY AND SONS,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(5),

In the result, the appeals by the assessee‟s are dismissed

ITA 19/JAB/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur08 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Dhiraj Ghai, FCAFor Respondent: Shri U.B. Mishra , CIT-DR
Section 263Section 263(2)

31, ascertained. At this stage, the Bench, allowing time, required the parties to respond qua the recent decision by the Apex Court in CIT v. Mohammed Meeran Shahul Hameed [2021] 438 ITR 288 (SC). Per the same, it has been clarified by the Apex Court, in the context of s. 263(2), that the date of receipt of the order

SURESH UPADHYAY AND SONS,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(5),

In the result, the appeals by the assessee‟s are dismissed

ITA 20/JAB/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur08 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Dhiraj Ghai, FCAFor Respondent: Shri U.B. Mishra , CIT-DR
Section 263Section 263(2)

31, ascertained. At this stage, the Bench, allowing time, required the parties to respond qua the recent decision by the Apex Court in CIT v. Mohammed Meeran Shahul Hameed [2021] 438 ITR 288 (SC). Per the same, it has been clarified by the Apex Court, in the context of s. 263(2), that the date of receipt of the order

ANURODH SAHU,JABALPUR vs. ITO (IT AND TP), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 11/JAB/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2018-19 Anurodh Sahu, Vs. Ito (Ft & Tp), 3173, Tulsi Nagar Ranjhi, Jabalpur, Bhopal Madhya Pradesh Pan: Bktps9371L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Anil Agrawal, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.11.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Income Tax Officer (It & Tp), Bhopal At Jabalpur Dated 16.01.2024 Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act For The A.Y. 2018-19. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1. That The Assessment Order Issued By The Learned Assessing Officer On The Basis Of Directions Of Drp Is Unjustified & Base Less On The Basis Of Information & Documents Submitted. 2. That The Learned Assessing Officer Has Never Countered Or Produced Before The Assessee The Source Of Information/ Documents On Basis Of Which The Said Addition Appealed Against Is Made During Whole Assessment Proceedings. 3. That The Learned Assessing Officer Never Questioned The Relevant Sources Of Income Produced & Submitted By The Assessee During The Assessment Proceedings & Brought Nothing On Record To Prove Or Justify The Assessee Having Some Other Source Or Hidden Source Of Income. 4. That The Learned Assessing Officer Has Made The Additions On The Basis Of Incomplete Information Having No Evidence & Based On Surmises On The Directions Given By Drp.

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Agrawal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 271

gain was computed on the basis of summary transactions provided by the Koinex exchange. As per the same, assessee had made purchases of the value of Rs. 1,31,31,481/- and sales of Rs. 1,28,58,585/-. Thus, prima facie, the assessee had incurred a loss of Rs. 2,72,896/-. Accordingly, the AO decided to allow