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.

115 results for “capital gains”+ Section 234Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi386Mumbai339Bangalore192Jaipur115Hyderabad81Ahmedabad52Pune37Chennai36Nagpur25Indore24Kolkata23Visakhapatnam22Ranchi15Karnataka12Jodhpur11Chandigarh11Amritsar11Lucknow10Patna10Rajkot7Guwahati7Agra5Surat5Jabalpur4SC3Varanasi2Cuttack2Telangana1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1Panaji1Allahabad1Raipur1

Key Topics

Section 271A165Section 14784Addition to Income77Section 143(3)74Section 14868Section 234A67Section 25037Deduction34Disallowance29Natural Justice

BHOPAL SINGH SHEKHAWAT,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

ITA 656/JPR/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Jan 2019AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Adv)For Respondent: Shri J.C. Kulhari (JCIT)
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 244ASection 251Section 45Section 48(2)

Capital Gain (LTCG) Rs.7,57,192/-: 3.1 The Id. CIT(A) seriously erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the addition of LTCG of Rs. 7,57,192/- irt plots No.157-A & 157-B which were sold for & on behalf of Mohd. Irshad and also in holding the appellant to be the beneficiary owner

Showing 1–20 of 115 · Page 1 of 6

23
Limitation/Time-bar23
Long Term Capital Gains23

KULDEEP SINGH SHEKHAWAT,KOTA vs. ITO W-2(1), KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 701/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Gagan Goyalkuldeep Singh Shekhawat, 11, Samridhi Traders, Police Line, Gopal Vihar, Baran Road-324001 Pan No. Araps0973M ...... Appellant Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Kota …... Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar, JCIT, Ld. DR
Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 54Section 54BSection 54F

Capital Gain by not allowing the registry charges of Rs. 4,55,540/-(while allowing the deduction claimed u/s. 54B of the Act for purchase of agriculture land of Rs. 70,00,000/-). The disallowance so made and confirmed by the Id. CIT (A), being contrary to the provisions of law and the established facts, kindly be deleted in full

SHRI LALIT KUMAR KALWAR,SARWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AJMER

ITA 379/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 234ASection 48Section 50CSection 54FSection 54F(1)

capital gain without giving proper benefit of indexation and deduction u/s 54F of the Act. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT (A) grossly erred in adopting fair market value of property from F.Y. 2004-05 without considering the explanation (iii) to provision of section 48 of the Act. 5. That

BHARATPUR ROYAL FAMILY RELIGIOUS & CEREMONIAL TRUST,BHARATPUR vs. CIT(E), JAIPUR

In the result, we upheld the order of the ld PCIT in exercise of his powers u/s 263 in setting aside the order so passed by the AO and the grounds of appeal taken by the assessee are hereby dismissed

ITA 290/JPR/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Jul 2021AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Rajendra Singh (CIT)
Section 10Section 12ASection 154Section 24Section 263Section 297

234A, 234B, and 234C of the IT Act. 4.4 The appellant has filed detailed submissions. It is stated that vide a certificate no. 4/26/56-Po11.III of Ministry of Home Affairs, Po11 III Section intimated vide letter dated 12th November, 1958, exemption from income tax was given to the trust. The appellant has stated that AO has failed to appreciate that Section

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. KAMLAPRABHA L/H OF LATE SHRI GOPAL LAL JI GOSWAMI, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross objection of the assessee is disposed off in terms of the observation made herein above

ITA 94/JPR/2025[2014]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Aug 2025

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

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-Sr.DR a
Section 144Section 153C

capital gains were disclosed by the appellant in the income tax return for the year under appeal. There is no addition w.r.t. sale consideration. The regular scrutiny assessment for the year under appeal had already been completed wherein no addition has been made on the issue. Even in the satisfaction note although the reference to seize documents in the form

BALWANT YADAV,JAIPUR vs. ITO, ALWAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 414/JPR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Feb 2018AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Poonam Roy (DCIT)
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 244ASection 54BSection 54F

234A, 234B, 234C & 234D of the Act and as also in withdrawing interest u/s 244A of the Act. The appellant totally denies its liability of charging and withdrawal of any such interest. The interest so charged/withdrawn, being contrary to the provisions of law and facts, kindly be deleted in full. ITA 414 & 415/JP/2017_ 4 Balwant Yadav Vs. ITO 2. Since

SATBIR YADAV,JAIPUR vs. ITO, ALWAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 415/JPR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Feb 2018AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Poonam Roy (DCIT)
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 244ASection 54BSection 54F

234A, 234B, 234C & 234D of the Act and as also in withdrawing interest u/s 244A of the Act. The appellant totally denies its liability of charging and withdrawal of any such interest. The interest so charged/withdrawn, being contrary to the provisions of law and facts, kindly be deleted in full. ITA 414 & 415/JP/2017_ 4 Balwant Yadav Vs. ITO 2. Since

JAGDISH KUMAR ARORA,BHAWANIMANDI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1195/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 69

234A, B,C and D. The interest so charged is being totally contrary to the provision of law and on facts of the case and hence same may kindly be deleted in full . 5. That the appellant prays your honour indulgences to add, amend or alter of or any of the grounds of the appeal on or before the date

ROSHAN LAL,ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHIWADI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for

ITA 50/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: The Hon'Ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur.

For Appellant: Sh. Prateek BasotiaFor Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 69A

capital asset under Section 2(14) of the Act, the appellant, being a layperson with limited financial literacy and no prior knowledge of tax laws, genuinely believed that the transaction was entirely tax-exempt. Accordingly, he did not file an ITR for the said year, under the bona fide belief that no tax liability arose from the transaction

ALOK KUMAR JAIN ,PEARL PLEASURE vs. ACIT CIR-6, JAIPUR, NEW CERNTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, BHAGWAN DASS ROAD, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN,

ITA 1191/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Him.

For Appellant: Sh. Prakul Khurana, Adv. &For Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69A

Section 68, the first condition is that the amount must be credited in the books of accounts, Ld. AO has nowhere mentioned that he found any sum credited in appellant's books of accounts. Further, as stated above, Alok Kumar Jain vs. ACIT/DCIT the Appellant already submitted the sufficient documentary evidence to establish the genuineness of the exemption claimed

MUKESH KUMAR JAJORIYA,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ITO WD 2(3), JPR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

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

ITA 51/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Anoop Singh (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 2(14)Section 234ASection 54B

section 144/147 of the Income Tax Act,1961 [ for short “Act” ] by the ITO, Ward-2(3), Jaipur. 2.1 The assessee has marched this appeal on the following 2 Sh. Mukesh Kumar Jajoriya vs.ITO grounds:- “1. The impugned addition made in the order u/s 144/147 dated 28.12.2019 is contested on the grounds of jurisdiction and various other reasons

REGHUVEER SINGH TANWAR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

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

ITA 357/JPR/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Mar 2017AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargia (CA)For Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma (Addl. CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 244ASection 50CSection 54FSection 80C

Capital Gain and the impugned addition be deleted. 4. The ld. DVO erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in not judiciously appreciated the objection raised and in particular of the admitted fact that in record of the Jaipur Development Authority (JDA), the character of the land still continues to be a residential property

KATRATHAL GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED ,KATRATHAL vs. ITO WARD 1 SIKAR, SIKAR

ITA 1001/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Oct 2025AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, Adv.\rFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT\r
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 147rSection 148Section 148ASection 151Section 234ASection 250

capital gains were\r\nnot treated to be genuine, AO also rejected claim of assessee for exemption u/s\r\n54F—CIT(A) held that, rejection of claim of exemption u/s 54F by AO, was in\r\norder-Held, section 54F, neither provided as pre-condition requirement of filing\r\nof 'return of income' by assessee within stipulated time period

NAHTA TRADING CO.,JHALAWAR vs. ITO WARD JHALAWAR, JHALAWAR

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

ITA 449/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Devang Gargieya (Adv. )For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)
Section 142Section 147Section 148Section 234A

capital gain even though the same pertained/belonged to Smt. Sangeeta Nahata and not to the appellant. The addition so made and the confirmation thereof by the ld. CIT(A) being contrary to the provisions of law and facts of the case, the same kindly be allowed in full. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well

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

gain on sale of shares. Therefore, the documents which were found and seized during the course of search and seizure action contains the details of LTCG would not be regarded as incriminating material disclosing any income not recorded in the books of account. Hence the primary condition for treating such income as undisclosed income in terms of section 271AAB

MOHAMMED SIRAJ,JHUNJHUNU vs. ITO, WARD-1, JHUNJHUNU, JHUNJHUNU

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 109/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Poonia, CA &For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 234BSection 50CSection 54B

Section 154 for rectification of mistake apparent on record as the issue involved are not covered under mistake apparent on record under the scope of 154 of the Act. Kindly quash the rectification order u/s 154 or delete the addition. 3.1 Brief facts of the case are that the return of income was filed by the assessee

IDRISH,MATAWAS vs. ITO, WARD-BHIWADI, INCOME TAX

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 818/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma (Adv.) (Th.V.C.)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra(Addl.CIT)
Section 147Section 2(14)Section 234A

capital gain on sale of land without granting any benefit of the cost of acquisition/ cost of improvement of land. The addition so made without giving benefit of COA and COI by the Id. AO and confirmed by the Id. CIT(A), is totally contrary to the provisions of law and facts on the record and hence the same kindly

PUNEET SINGHVI,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), KOTA

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

ITA 1294/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)Section 234ASection 48Section 50C

234A, 234B, 234C & 234D of the Act. The appellant totally denies it liability of charging of any such interest. The interest, so charged, being contrary to the provisions of law and facts, kindly be deleted in full. 2.1 Apropos Ground of appeals (supra), it is noted that the ld. CIT(A) has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee

KATH BROTHERS,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 77/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 69

234A, B,C and D. The interest so charged is being totally contrary to the provision of law and on facts of the case and hence same may kindly be deleted in full . 3 Kath Brothers vs. ACIT 5. That the appellant prays your honour indulgences to add, amend or alter of or any of the grounds of the appeal

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

gain on sale of shares. Therefore, the documents which were found and seized during the course of search and seizure action contains the details of LTCG would not be regarded as incriminating material disclosing any income not recorded in the books of account. Hence the primary condition for treating such income as undisclosed income in terms of section 271AAB