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 271Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Jaipur6Mumbai6Ahmedabad6Lucknow5Delhi4Indore3Bangalore2Kolkata2Surat1Chennai1Dehradun1Jodhpur1Patna1Raipur1

Key Topics

Section 1479Section 271B9Section 269S6Section 1486Section 271D4Addition to Income4Section 133(6)3Section 143(2)3Penalty3Cash Deposit

RAKESH KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 330/JPR/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2023AY 2012-2013

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

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Gupta (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 217BSection 271B

capital loss on account of trading in securities. The Ld. A.O also allegedly issued two show cause notices for imposing penalty under Section 271B (Paper Book Page 15 & Pages 16-17). However, one of the show cause notice allegedly dated 20.12.2019 was not uploaded on portal and was also not served in hard copy. The copy of screenshot of portal

2
Short Term Capital Gains2

MANPHOOL SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 748/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: The Appeal Hearing.”

For Appellant: Sh. Dev Arora (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(2)Section 271B

section 271B and levied penalty of Rs. 22,851/- being half percentage of gross turnover—CIT(A) upheld penalty levied on assessee—Held, A.O. levied penalty u/s 271B for failure to get accounts audited u/s 44AB—A.O. was of opinion that turnover of assessee for year exceeded Rs. 40 lakhs— Despite turnover exceeded Rs. 40 lakhs, assessee had not submitted

BALVEER SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 3(3) JAIPUR, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

ITA 183/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Oct 2024AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Naresh Gupta (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Nargas (JCIT)
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147

capital gains. The Tribunal decided to set aside the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication to provide the assessee with a sufficient opportunity to present evidence and submissions.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "143(3)", "147", "148", "142(1)", "145(3)", "271(1)(c)", "271(1)(b)", "271B

SH. ASHOK KUMAR PORWAL,JHALAWAR vs. JCIT, RANGE-1, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 572/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Dec 2023AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Chaudhary (Addl. CIT)
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 269SSection 271D

capital gain (LTCG) on sale of shares which was claimed as exempt under section 10(38), since said transactions of sale and purchase of shares were admitted by assessee and it had not brought on record anything to suggest that reassessment proceedings were being undertaken in arbitrary manner, impugned reopening notice was justified [2023] 152 taxmann.com

RAGHAV COMMODITIES,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated

ITA 943/JPR/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Nov 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148A

section 147 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, [ for short “AO”] by Faceless Assessment Unit. 2 Raghav Commodities vs. ITO 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds: - “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Id. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the reopening the assessment

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. INDU RATHORE, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 515/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Dalmia, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl. CIT a
Section 143(2)Section 69A

capital gain’’ and income from other sources. The notice u/s143(2) of the Act was issued on 09-08-2018 which was served upon the assessee through registered post and online ITBA portal and e-mail id. It is noticed that during the assessment year under consideration 07 3 ITO, WARD 6(4), JAIPUR VS SMT INDU RATHORE, JAIPUR notices