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.

139 results for “capital gains”+ Section 172(4)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai663Delhi422Bangalore142Jaipur139Karnataka116Chennai104Chandigarh99Hyderabad98Cochin95Ahmedabad94Indore68Kolkata63Calcutta51Raipur43Pune39Nagpur22Guwahati21Cuttack21Rajkot20Lucknow15Ranchi12Telangana11Visakhapatnam8Surat8Amritsar6Varanasi6Jodhpur4Allahabad4Agra4SC3Rajasthan3Jabalpur2Andhra Pradesh1Kerala1Patna1Dehradun1

Key Topics

Section 271A142Section 143(3)75Addition to Income74Section 153A73Section 133A33Section 6822Disallowance22Search & Seizure22Survey u/s 133A20

LAL CHAND MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 5(2), JAIPUR

ITA 1074/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Anoop Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 50CSection 54F

section 148 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, for that assessment year" The assessee objected to such re-opening as it was hit by the first proviso to sec 147, whereby an assessment / re-assessment completed u/s 143(3) of the act is sought to be re-opened after lapse of four years

Showing 1–20 of 139 · Page 1 of 7

Section 143(2)17
Penalty17
Section 234A16

FEDERATION OF RAJASTHAN TRADE AND INDUSTRY,JAIPUR vs. ITO-EXEMPTION WARD-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 217/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Pandya (Adv.) &For Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl.CIT) a
Section 127Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

4 Federation of Rajasthan Trade & Industry 3.1 The ld. AO noted that details were called-for from the assessee relating to receipts, applications and long term capital loss shown in the computation of total income. The AR of the assessee company filed requisite details. On perusal of details filed, it was revealed that the assessee company has declared sale proceeds

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI MUKESH JAIN, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

ITA 162/JPR/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Section 132 (4) of the Act of the Act do not by themselves constitute incriminating material as has been explained by this Court in Harjeev Aggarwal (supra). 16. Coming to the statements of various entry operators in the order. I have perused the statements from the Ld. AO's order & have gone through the entire statements in the order

ACIT,CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI RAMESH KUMAR MANTRI, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

ITA 164/JPR/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Section 132 (4) of the Act of the Act do not by themselves constitute incriminating material as has been explained by this Court in Harjeev Aggarwal (supra). 16. Coming to the statements of various entry operators in the order. I have perused the statements from the Ld. AO's order & have gone through the entire statements in the order

ACIT,CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI RAMESH KUMAR MANTRI, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

ITA 165/JPR/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Section 132 (4) of the Act of the Act do not by themselves constitute incriminating material as has been explained by this Court in Harjeev Aggarwal (supra). 16. Coming to the statements of various entry operators in the order. I have perused the statements from the Ld. AO's order & have gone through the entire statements in the order

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SMT. SANGEETA MANTRI, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

ITA 160/JPR/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Section 132 (4) of the Act of the Act do not by themselves constitute incriminating material as has been explained by this Court in Harjeev Aggarwal (supra). 16. Coming to the statements of various entry operators in the order. I have perused the statements from the Ld. AO's order & have gone through the entire statements in the order

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI MUKESH JAIN, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

ITA 161/JPR/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Section 132 (4) of the Act of the Act do not by themselves constitute incriminating material as has been explained by this Court in Harjeev Aggarwal (supra). 16. Coming to the statements of various entry operators in the order. I have perused the statements from the Ld. AO's order & have gone through the entire statements in the order

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI MUKUT BEHARI AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

ITA 153/JPR/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Section 132 (4) of the Act of the Act do not by themselves constitute incriminating material as has been explained by this Court in Harjeev Aggarwal (supra). 16. Coming to the statements of various entry operators in the order. I have perused the statements from the Ld. AO's order & have gone through the entire statements in the order

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SMT. ASHA JAIN, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

ITA 159/JPR/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Section 132 (4) of the Act of the Act do not by themselves constitute incriminating material as has been explained by this Court in Harjeev Aggarwal (supra). 16. Coming to the statements of various entry operators in the order. I have perused the statements from the Ld. AO's order & have gone through the entire statements in the order

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI MUKUT BEHARI AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

ITA 152/JPR/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Section 132 (4) of the Act of the Act do not by themselves constitute incriminating material as has been explained by this Court in Harjeev Aggarwal (supra). 16. Coming to the statements of various entry operators in the order. I have perused the statements from the Ld. AO's order & have gone through the entire statements in the order

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SMT. SUNITA AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

ITA 156/JPR/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Section 132 (4) of the Act of the Act do not by themselves constitute incriminating material as has been explained by this Court in Harjeev Aggarwal (supra). 16. Coming to the statements of various entry operators in the order. I have perused the statements from the Ld. AO's order & have gone through the entire statements in the order

SMT. INDIRA AGRAWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1384/JPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Mar 2019AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 271A

capital account of the assessee which was also part of the record of the assessment year 2014-15. But the AO has accepted all these details without any adverse finding or comments while passing the assessment order under section 153A or the Act. The assessee has also produced sale bills/contract notes regarding sale of shares, copy of ledger account

SMT. JYOTI AGARWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA nos

ITA 1373/JPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Mar 2019AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 271A

capital account of the assessee which was also part of the record of the assessment year 2014-15. But the AO has accepted all these details without any adverse finding or comments while passing the assessment order under section 153A or the Act. The assessee has also produced sale bills/contract notes regarding sale of shares, copy of ledger account

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI MUKUT BEHARI AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 155/JPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri P.R. Meena (Pr.CIT)
Section 115BSection 127Section 132Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

section 132(4). Hon'ble High Court in the above mentioned case relied on its earlier order in the case of Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi [2008] 174 Taxman 466 (Guj.),wherein a similar ratio was laid down. Further, in the case of Narendra Garg & Ashok Garg (AOP) [2016] 72 taxmann.com 355 (Gujarat), Hon'ble Gujarat High Court held that

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SMT. SUNITA AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 157/JPR/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri P.R. Meena (Pr.CIT)
Section 115BSection 127Section 132Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

section 132(4). Hon'ble High Court in the above mentioned case relied on its earlier order in the case of Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi [2008] 174 Taxman 466 (Guj.),wherein a similar ratio was laid down. Further, in the case of Narendra Garg & Ashok Garg (AOP) [2016] 72 taxmann.com 355 (Gujarat), Hon'ble Gujarat High Court held that

ACIT, C.C. -4, JAIPUR vs. MAVERICK COMMODITY BROKERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 27/JPR/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri P.R. Meena (Pr.CIT)
Section 115BSection 127Section 132Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

section 132(4). Hon'ble High Court in the above mentioned case relied on its earlier order in the case of Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi [2008] 174 Taxman 466 (Guj.),wherein a similar ratio was laid down. Further, in the case of Narendra Garg & Ashok Garg (AOP) [2016] 72 taxmann.com 355 (Gujarat), Hon'ble Gujarat High Court held that

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SMT. SUNITA AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 158/JPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri P.R. Meena (Pr.CIT)
Section 115BSection 127Section 132Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

section 132(4). Hon'ble High Court in the above mentioned case relied on its earlier order in the case of Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi [2008] 174 Taxman 466 (Guj.),wherein a similar ratio was laid down. Further, in the case of Narendra Garg & Ashok Garg (AOP) [2016] 72 taxmann.com 355 (Gujarat), Hon'ble Gujarat High Court held that

ACIT, CC-4, , JAIPUR vs. SHRI ANSHUL JAIN, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 163/JPR/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri P.R. Meena (Pr.CIT)
Section 115BSection 127Section 132Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

section 132(4). Hon'ble High Court in the above mentioned case relied on its earlier order in the case of Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi [2008] 174 Taxman 466 (Guj.),wherein a similar ratio was laid down. Further, in the case of Narendra Garg & Ashok Garg (AOP) [2016] 72 taxmann.com 355 (Gujarat), Hon'ble Gujarat High Court held that

JUHI BHANDARI, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE (INTL TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 234/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Aug 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Ranka, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal, CIT (through VC)
Section 144C(5)Section 153CSection 69

4. That there is no logic whatsoever to say that source of investment was not\nverified/proved by the assessee. In-case of payments made through Capital\nGains Account Scheme, every single penny is credited from restricted\ntransfers.\n22. 5. That the DRP failed to peruse the Draft Assessment Order dated 30.03.2024\nwherein Assessing Officer in has infact recorded as hereunder

SMT. APARNA AGRAWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue

ITA 1378/JPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Mar 2019AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 251(2)Section 271A

capital account of the assessee which was also part of the record of the assessment year 2014-15. But the AO has accepted all these details without any adverse finding or comments while passing the assessment order under section 153A or the Act. The assessee has also produced sale bills/contract notes regarding sale of shares, copy of ledger account