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.

6 results for “capital gains”+ Section 50clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,859Delhi1,334Chennai449Jaipur369Bangalore361Ahmedabad356Hyderabad316Kolkata261Chandigarh219Pune176Indore167Cochin134Surat108Raipur101Nagpur93Rajkot86Visakhapatnam63Lucknow56Amritsar41Patna32Dehradun31Guwahati28Cuttack28Jodhpur26Agra20Allahabad9Varanasi9Jabalpur6Ranchi6Panaji4

Key Topics

Section 14810Section 1478Addition to Income6Section 14A3Section 1443Natural Justice3Section 143(3)2Section 502Section 2502Reopening of Assessment

GOMESH DWIVEDI,PADRA vs. ITO-REWA, DISTRICT REWA (MP), REWA

In the result, ITA Nos. 15 & 16/JAB/2024 are held to be allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 15/JAB/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur19 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.15 & 16/Jab/2024 A.Ys. 2012-13 & 2013-14 Gomesh Dwivedi, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward No.3, Durga Nagar Padra Huzur Rewa, M.P. Rewa, M.P. Pan:Akcpd5536A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Abhijeet Shrivastava, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. N.M. Prasad, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

section 144 had been passed without considering the facts of the case. It was submitted that out of the payment of Rs.1,64,00,000/-, Sh. Dileep Kumar Rajwani had paid a sum of Rs.1,50,00,000/- through account payee cheques issued from Rewa Sidhi Gramin Bank where he had been maintaining the account no.8081959076 and the balance

2

GOMESH DWIVEDI,PADRA REWA vs. ITO-REWA, DITRICT REWA (MP), REWA

In the result, ITA Nos. 15 & 16/JAB/2024 are held to be allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 16/JAB/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur19 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.15 & 16/Jab/2024 A.Ys. 2012-13 & 2013-14 Gomesh Dwivedi, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward No.3, Durga Nagar Padra Huzur Rewa, M.P. Rewa, M.P. Pan:Akcpd5536A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Abhijeet Shrivastava, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. N.M. Prasad, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

section 144 had been passed without considering the facts of the case. It was submitted that out of the payment of Rs.1,64,00,000/-, Sh. Dileep Kumar Rajwani had paid a sum of Rs.1,50,00,000/- through account payee cheques issued from Rewa Sidhi Gramin Bank where he had been maintaining the account no.8081959076 and the balance

ANUPAMA STHAPAK,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(3), JABALPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 25/JAB/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur19 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54F

50,000 with respect to investment done in new property and Rs.50,00,000 deposited in capital gain account which was duly withdrawn for the purpose and payment on account of expenses done for the construction without even going through the reply and documents filed by the appellant. 6. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) of NFAC New Delhi

RJKUMAR VALECHA L/H OF LATE SHRI GHANSHYAM DAS VALECHA,JABALPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 2(1), JABAPUR

ITA 176/JAB/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur27 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2012-13 Rajkumar Valecha L/H Of Late V. Dcit Circle-2(1) Shri Ghanshyam Das Valecha Annexue Building Napier S-736/1-4 Mahavir Complex, Town-482001. Russal Chowk-482001. Pan:Abjpv5609E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri G. N. Purohit, Sr. Advocate Respondent By: Shri Rahul Padha, Jc-2 Date Of Hearing: 11 02 2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 27 02 2026 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri G. N. Purohit, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Padha, JC-2
Section 143(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 153(2)Section 50

section 50(c) as the agreement for sale is dated 22/04/2007. Page 2 of 5 5. The legal heir was registered on the IT portal on 26/04/2019, the CIT (A) and AO cannot take shelter that death certificate was not submitted before AO. The copy of death certificate is submitted before CIT(A) which is ignored to uphold the legality

CHHAYA MASURKAR,BALAGHAT vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTER JURISDICTION OFFICER- ITO, BALAGHAT, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 27/JAB/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur21 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshrachhaya Masurkar V. National Faceless 1 Ward No.9 Ram Mandir Road, Assessment Centre Katangi, Madhya Pradesh- Jurisdiction Officer-Ito, 481445. Balaghat Delhi. Tan/Pan:Cakpm8662A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Vijay Bagrecha, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. Cit(Dr) O R D E R (1). The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Impugned Order Dated 13.02.2024 Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred As To “Cit(A)”)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Grounds Of Appeal Of The Assessee Are As Under: -

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Bagrecha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. CIT(DR)
Section 144Section 147Section 148

capital gain as added to income of Rs26,49,500/- besides addition of income from other sources of Rs2,00,500 (being difference of cash deposition and full sales consideration). Ld. CIT-A has erred in confirming the assessment order with addition. 7. On facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT -A erred in having

RASHMEET SINGH MALHOTRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1,

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

ITA 226/JAB/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. K.P Dewani, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Ravi Mehrotra, JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 48

section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The same may be deleted in toto in the interest of justice. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld.CIT (A) erred and is totally unjustified in confirming the addition/disallowance of Rs.14,16,175/- from the short term capital loss on the ground