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 51clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,197Delhi763Chennai256Bangalore255Ahmedabad237Jaipur214Hyderabad167Chandigarh156Kolkata131Raipur91Cochin77Indore73Pune69Nagpur52Surat50Rajkot36Visakhapatnam33Guwahati33Lucknow31Cuttack18Jodhpur17Amritsar7Jabalpur6Ranchi5Patna5Allahabad5Agra5Dehradun5Panaji4Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 2639Section 143(1)7Addition to Income5Section 114Section 1474Section 1484Section 14A3Section 1443Section 250(6)3

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

capital gain shown in the original return of income could not be accepted. He, therefore, added back a sum of Rs. 88,76,961/- on this account. 5. Aggrieved with the said addition, the assessee went in appeal to the ld. CIT(A). Before the ld. CIT(A), it was submitted that the assessee only enjoyed a 1.42% interest

Natural Justice3
Disallowance2

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

capital gain shown in the original return of income could not be accepted. He, therefore, added back a sum of Rs. 88,76,961/- on this account. 5. Aggrieved with the said addition, the assessee went in appeal to the ld. CIT(A). Before the ld. CIT(A), it was submitted that the assessee only enjoyed a 1.42% interest

SMT. VANDANA SARAOGI,KATNI vs. PCIT(CENTRAL) BHOPAL AT JABA, JABALPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 86/JAB/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur12 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y.2016-17 Smt Vandana Saraogi Vs. Principal Commissioner Prop. Mahalaxmi Industries, Ghantaghar, Of Income Tax (Central) Hanumanganj Ward, Katni-483222. Bhopal At Jabalpur Director General Of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhawan, 48, Arera Hills, Bhopal-462011. Pan: Asips2301L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Dhiraj Ghai, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Shravan Kumar Meena, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.12.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pcit(Central), Bhopal At Jabalpur U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, For Short) Setting Aside The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) U/S 153A Read With Section 143(3) Of The Act Dated 22.04.2021. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Sh. Dhiraj Ghai, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Shravan Kumar Meena, CIT- DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 263(1)

capital gain against sale of two properties but shown in the incorrect consideration against the sale of property named as, “House 184.80 Sq. mtrs”. However, as per insight/TDS details the correct sale consideration of the property named as, “House 184.80 Sq. mtrs” was Rs.63,21,000/-. Hence, there was a difference of Rs.20,51,589/- and since the order

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

RAJADHAR SHARMA,PRITHVIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TIKAMGARH

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

ITA 171/JAB/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur21 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 144Section 250(6)

51,222/- by making addition of Rs.35,00,000/- on account of Long Term Capital Gain and addition of Rs.51,222/- on account of unexplained interest income. The order passed by the Assessing Officer was an ex-parte order qua the assessee. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal in the office of learned CIT(A). Vide impugned appellate order dated

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)

51,182/- instead of deduction claimed of Rs.540,082/-, which is rightly and validly allowable u/s.11(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 as per return of income filed by the Appellant. 2. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law as well as on the facts of the case by confirming disallowance of deduction of Rs.21