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.

4 results for “capital gains”+ Demonetizationclear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai71Jaipur42Hyderabad41Panaji29Delhi24Mumbai21Bangalore19Visakhapatnam14Ahmedabad12Pune8Kolkata8Lucknow7Agra6Cuttack6Surat5Rajkot5Jodhpur4Raipur4Amritsar3Indore3Dehradun3Chandigarh3Patna1SC1Cochin1Karnataka1

Key Topics

Section 153A8Section 145(3)5Section 1324Addition to Income4Section 143(3)2Section 143(2)2Section 2502Section 234A2Section 69A2

ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BIKANER vs. MUKESH SHAH, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 399/JODH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur08 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

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

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24

demonetization period is verifiable from the earlier bank withdrawals itself and therefore the addition of Rs.80,00,000/- made by the AO is deleted. In the result, this ground of appeal is allowed. Finding on Business Income or capital gain

SMT KRISHNA AGARWAL ,PALI vs. ITO WARD-1, PALI, PALI

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

Cash Deposit2
Deduction2
Natural Justice2
ITA 53/JODH/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur07 Sept 2021AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Jain (C.A.)For Respondent: Miss Kajal Singh (JCIT) a
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

capital gains as per provision of law and disclosed the same in her return of A.Y 2016-17. 4 Smt. Krishna Agarwal vs. ITO 4. It was submitted that from the bank statement, it can be observed that the assessee has received the sales consideration from sale of property in 2014 & 2015 and thereafter has withdrawn the cash

ASHIANA BUILDPROP PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDIAPUR, UDAIPUR

ITA 709/JODH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur26 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 250

capital gain or u/s 48, 56 or u/s 68 or 69. Thus the addition so made without any provision of act is also against the law and liable to be deleted on this ground alone. When the ld. AO has not invoked any provision of Act/law then also how the ld.AO can make the addition. When

ASHIANA BUILDPROP PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

ITA 706/JODH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur26 May 2025AY 2013-14
Section 132Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 250

Capital gains—Applicability of first proviso to s. 12B of 1922 Act—\nProviso to s. 12B not attracted unless there is evidence that more consideration than\nwhat was stated in the document of transfer was received—Onus in this regard is on\nRevenue—Emphasis in those provisions is on consideration declared or disclosed by the\nassessee as distinguished from