Search: capital gains | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

200 results for “capital gains”+ Section 74clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,077 Delhi726 Bangalore247 Chennai230 Ahmedabad212 Jaipur200 Hyderabad132 Chandigarh128 Kolkata102 Raipur77 Indore74 Cochin73 Pune73 Surat41 Panaji40 Rajkot35 Visakhapatnam27 Nagpur26 Guwahati22 Lucknow19 Cuttack17 Amritsar13 Dehradun8 Jodhpur7 Ranchi5 Varanasi5 Agra3 Patna2 Jabalpur1 Allahabad1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)72 Addition to Income64 Section 14436 Section 14734 Section 14833 Section 80I32 Section 153A31 Section 25030 Deduction29 Section 68

GURUVENDRA SINGH ,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 144/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Sh. Rohan Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (Addl. CIT) a

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 548Section 54B

74,118 2016-17 18,55,935 Nil 14784290 41,987 1,47,42,303 NIL 1.7. Against the amount of Capital Gain, assessee claimed benefit of Section

Showing 1–20 of 200 · Page 1 of 10

...

28

INDIRA GIRI,JAIPUR vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, INCOME TAX DEPARMENT JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 511/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: The Due Date Of Furnishing Itr, Therefore Deposit In Capital Gain Account For Compliance U/S 54(2) Was Impossible On The Part Of The Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Manik (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh (Addl.CIT) a

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54(2)Section 54F

capital gain offered by the assessee is based on the wrong appreciation of the facts and therefore, the same cannot be denied because the assessee has given post dated cheque for investment and the same is filed along 32 Indira Giri vs. ITO with paper book which has not been disputed by the Revenue. The assessee has produced the copy

DCIT,C-7, JAIPUR vs. BHARAT MOHAN RATURI, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed and that of the C

ITA 413/JPR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 413/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear :2013-14 The DCIT Circle-7 Jaipur cuke Vs. Shri Bharat Mohan Raturi 161, Indira Colony, Bani Park Jaipur 302 015 (Raj) LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AANPR 7066G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent CO No. 2/JP/2023 (Arising out of vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 413/JP/2022 ) fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear :2013-14 Shri Bharat Mohan Raturi 161, Indira

For Appellant: Shri Anil Goya, CA &For Respondent: Mrs. Runi Pal, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 148Section 54Section 54F

capital gain the same proportion as the cost of the new asset bears to the net consideration, shall not be charged under section 45: [Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall apply where— (a) The assessee,— (i) owns64 more than one residential house, other than the new asset, on the date of transfer of the original asset

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

capital gain of Rs. 77,42,269/- taking into consideration the value u/s 50C (DLC) of Rs. 85,99,470/-, Further, the assessee claimed deduction u/s 54F of Rs. 74,25,181/-taking net consideration of Rs. 50,00,000/-. Based on that set of fact the ld. AO noted that there was an excess claim allowed amounting

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S RIGID CONDUCTORS (RAJ.) PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 264/JPR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 May 2023AY 2016-17

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

capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Accordingly capital gain tax is leviable on compulsory acquisition of the land. In this connection it is submitted that the above said finding of the ld. AO was based on the enquiries made from the Tehsildar, Sanganer vide his letter dated 14.11.2019 and 15.11.2019 and also

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S VISION ESTATES PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 266/JPR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 May 2023AY 2016-17

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

capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Accordingly capital gain tax is leviable on compulsory acquisition of the land. In this connection it is submitted that the above said finding of the ld. AO was based on the enquiries made from the Tehsildar, Sanganer vide his letter dated 14.11.2019 and 15.11.2019 and also

DEPUTY COMMISSINER OF INCOME TAX, LIC BUILDING vs. M/S GEE VEE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 267/JPR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 May 2023AY 2016-17

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

capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Accordingly capital gain tax is leviable on compulsory acquisition of the land. In this connection it is submitted that the above said finding of the ld. AO was based on the enquiries made from the Tehsildar, Sanganer vide his letter dated 14.11.2019 and 15.11.2019 and also

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S CHOKHI DHANI DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 265/JPR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 May 2023AY 2016-17

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

capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Accordingly capital gain tax is leviable on compulsory acquisition of the land. In this connection it is submitted that the above said finding of the ld. AO was based on the enquiries made from the Tehsildar, Sanganer vide his letter dated 14.11.2019 and 15.11.2019 and also

NIRMAL KUMAR AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 4 , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1224/JPR/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Feb 2025AY 2013-2014

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT-DR

Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

74-75). Relevant extract of Order is reproduced as under for ready reference— “6. The reply of the assessee has been considered. The assessee has furnished reply alongwith supporting documentary evidence, which is acceptable. In this case the assessee had suo moto offered income of Rs 46,26,450/- being long term capital gain on sale of shares

RAJRAJESHWARI GUPTA ,KOTA vs. ITO , WARD 1(1),KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with no orders as to costs

ITA 245/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Sisodia AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Meena, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68Section 69C

section 68. 26 RAJ RAJESHWARI GUPTA VS ITO, WARD 1(3), KOTA 1.31As the issue involved is of chargeability of long term capital gain as undisclosed income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act, it may be mentioned that many High courts and ITAT benches have held in favour of the assessee. In one of the cases

RAM SHRAN KATTA, 257, KATTA STREET, JAIN MANDIR WALI GALI, DURGAPURA, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-6(4), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 623/JPR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT-DR)

Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 50C

section 50C and adopted the sale consideration of Rs. 23,06,888 instead of\nactual sale consideration of Rs. 18,91,000. The assessee disputed the Stamp Duty\nValuation, but ld. AO, without referring the valuation to DVO, computed the gains,\nw.r.t. Stamp Duty Valuation.\n1.5\nIn addition to above, ld. AO observed that expenses incurred

PAWAN GUPTA,KOTA vs. ITO WARD 1(3) KOTA , KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with no orders as to costs

ITA 252/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Sisodia AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Meena, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 10(38)Section 148Section 68Section 69C

section 68.\n1.31As the issue involved is of chargeability of long term capital gain as undisclosed income of the\nassessee u/s 68 of the Act, it may be mentioned that many High courts and ITAT benches have\nheld in favour of the assessee. In one of the cases (CIT vs. Mukesh Ratilal Marolia) SLP\nfiled by the Revenue against

RAM SHARAN KATTA, 257, KATTA STREET, JAIN MANDIR WALI GALI, DURGAPURA, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-6(4), JAIPUR, WARD-6(4), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 622/JPR/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Dec 2024AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT-DR)

Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 50C

section 50C and adopted the sale consideration of Rs. 23,06,888 instead of\nactual sale consideration of Rs. 18,91,000. The assessee disputed the Stamp Duty\nValuation, but ld. AO, without referring the valuation to DVO, computed the gains,\nw.r.t. Stamp Duty Valuation.\n1.5\nIn addition to above, ld. AO observed that expenses incurred

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD, KOTA

ITA 1090/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT &

Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

section 47(vii), from chargeability of capital gain, is not applicable. Ground No. 13 As per law, if the current year's loss of Rs. 391,92,69,355/- is allowed then it would be available for set-off against the Long Term Capital gain of Rs 1,64,34,696/- and consequently, no tax would be payable thereon

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD., KOTA

ITA 1097/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT &

Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

section 47(vii), from chargeability of capital gain, is not applicable. Ground No. 13 As per law, if the current year's loss of Rs. 391,92,69,355/- is allowed then it would be available for set-off against the Long Term Capital gain of Rs 1,64,34,696/- and consequently, no tax would be payable thereon

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD, KOTA

ITA 1091/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT &

Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

section 47(vii), from chargeability of capital gain, is not applicable. Ground No. 13 As per law, if the current year's loss of Rs. 391,92,69,355/- is allowed then it would be available for set-off against the Long Term Capital gain of Rs 1,64,34,696/- and consequently, no tax would be payable thereon

BITTHAL DAS PARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3 , JAIPUR

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

ITA 1348/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Him. 2. In This Appeal, The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, C.A. &For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl.CIT

Section 132(1)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

74,055/- by making the following additions and also penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 were initiated.  Addition on account of bogus LTCG of Rs.5.95,91,797/-on protective basis.  Addition on account of undisclosed capital gain of Rs.3,18,558/-. Against the above assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. Commissioner

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 is contemplated under section 54F (4) and it depends upon when the property of the assessee is sold and when exactly the amounts were invested, whether it was invested in a residential house or otherwise. All these facts have to be considered with reference to provisions of section 54F (4) along with 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 Gain of Rs.3,78,74,469/- (PB5). The Id. AO has discussed the issue of LTCG particularly in para 2 (PB 120). The AO, who finally passed the order dt.31.07.2016 u/s 143(3) of the Act (PB 119-121) by making additions / disallowances of Rs. 25,200/-and Rs. 8,52,531/-. Notably, no variation has been made

SHRI MANOJ KUMAR,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

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

ITA 54/JPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 50C

capital gain by taking the deemed sales consideration as per Section 50C of the Act at Rs.5,82,74,430/- (Rs.3