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.

5 results for “capital gains”+ Section 272A(1)(d)clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai27Mumbai10Ahmedabad9Hyderabad5Jaipur5Delhi5Chandigarh4Surat3Bangalore3Agra3Kolkata1Pune1Lucknow1

Key Topics

Section 271B7Section 143(3)6Section 695Section 115B5Addition to Income4Section 143(2)3Section 69A3Section 142(1)3Unexplained Investment3

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

gain to business income. The bench noted that the revenue could not controvert the fact that the assessee submitted that this is only solitary transactions which cannot be termed as business income. Merely the assessee has not challenged the finding of the ld. CIT(A) in quantum in the penalty proceeding the assessee cannot be called upon pay the penalty

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Deduction3
Section 145(3)2
Business Income2
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

272A(1)(c) levied by AO is not in accordance with law therefore same is cancelled—Assessee’s appeal of allowed • Hon'ble ITAT, Indore Bench in the case of ACIT v. Anoop Neema vide its order in ITA 05/Ind/2020 dated 06.01.2022 has held: 7. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. Revenue’s sole

MUJMMEEL ,KOTA vs. ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE , KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 620/JPR/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Miss. Swatika Jha, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, CIT a
Section 115BSection 133ASection 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69Section 69A

capital gains tax, along with any associated documentation, resides solely with the seller and is a matter strictly between the seller and tax authorities. The broker is neither involved in the financial decisions of the seller nor privy to their unique financial situations or tax returns. Thus, there can be no expectation that the broker would maintain detailed or accurate

SILVER WINGS LIFE SPACES,KOTA vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1 KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 511/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Learned Cit(A), Which Appeal Was Filed By The Assessee

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra(Addl. CIT)
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 69

272A(1)(c) levied by AO is not in accordance with law therefore same is cancelled—Assessee’s appeal of allowed. • Hon'ble ITAT, Indore Bench in the case of ACIT v. Anoop Neema vide its order in ITA 05/Ind/2020 dated 06.01.2022 has held: 7. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. Revenue’s sole

ANSHU SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , JAIPUR

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

ITA 45/JPR/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Mar 2023AY 2017-2018

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

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Saraswat (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Chaudhary (Addl. CIT) a
Section 129Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 69A

272A(1)(d) of the Act. In the Form No. 35 of that appeal, the appellant has clearly stated she is a 11 Anshu Sharma vs. ITO housewife and not carrying out any business. Therefore, the maintenance of books is not applicable to the facts of the appellant case and appears to be an afterthought on selection of the case