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.

7 results for “capital gains”+ Section 234B(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai811Delhi806Bangalore470Ahmedabad171Jaipur101Chennai94Kolkata92Hyderabad86Pune66Chandigarh38Nagpur35Indore32Visakhapatnam28Karnataka16Surat16Rajkot12Amritsar12Agra11Patna11Lucknow10Ranchi9Jodhpur7Telangana6Cuttack5Jabalpur4SC4Guwahati3Raipur2Cochin2Dehradun2Panaji1Allahabad1

Key Topics

Section 1479Addition to Income7Section 69A6Capital Gains6Section 234A5Section 143(2)5Section 54F4Section 1443Section 249(3)3

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARMER vs. PUSHP RAJ BOHRA, JALORE

The appeal of the revenue is allowed, in the manner discussed as above

ITA 200/JODH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur01 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, HonʼBle & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Bleito, Ward-1, Barmer. Vs. Pushp Raj Bohra, M-09, Shivaji Nagar, Jalore - 343001. Pan No. Aanpb4456C Assessee By Shri Goutam Chand Baid, C.A. Revenue By Smt. Runi Pal, Cit (D.R.) Date Of Hearing 29.04.2025. Date Of Pronouncement 01.03.2025. Order Per Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Id. National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac/Cit(A)], Delhi Dated 08.02.2024 In Respect Of Assessment Year: 2017-18 Where The Department Has Raised Following Grounds: 1. Whether The Id. Cit(A) Is Justified In Facts & Law In Directing To Treat The Income From The Sale Of Immovable Properties As Capital Gains Instead Of Business Income, By Ignoring The Fact That Assesse & His Business Concerns Are Engaged In The Business Of Property & Real Estate Development & Huge Expenses Of Rs. 8.72 Cr. Were Incurred By Assessee On Development Of Projects To Earn Profit. 2. Whether The Id. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & Facts By Directing The Ao To Treat The Income From The Sale Of Immovable Properties As Income From Capital Gains Instead Of Business Income By Merely Following The Order Of Hon'Ble

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54ESection 54F
Unexplained Money3
Section 50C2
Deduction2

234B of the Act. The interest under these sections is consequential in nature and has to be charged. However, the AO shall rework the said interest after considering the relief granted to the appellant in deciding ground no.2 to 4 above. 10.In the result, the appeal is treated as partly allowed for statistical purpose

SMT. CHANDRA KANTA CHOUDHARY,BHILWARA vs. ITO, WARD-3,, BHILWARA

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 110/JODH/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur28 Jan 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalsmt. Chandra Kanta Choudhary, Vs. I.T.O. 135, Main Sector, Ward-3, Bhilwara. Bhilwara. Pan No. Abxpc 9134 H Assessee By Shri Sunil Porwal (Ca) Revenue By Shri A.S. Yadav, Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing 03.11.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 29/01/2021 O R D E R Per: Bench This Is The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Ajmer Dated 10/01/2018 For The Ay. 2014-15, Wherein The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Have Quashed The Order Passed By Ld Ao As The Order Passed By Ld Ao Without Jurisdiction & Also Contrary To The Guideline Issued By The Hon’Ble Cbdt. 2. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Sustaining Addition Of Rs. 89,39,398/- In Respect Of Long Term Capital Gain Particularly When Same Was Never Subject Matter Of Limited Scrutiny. 3. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming Addition Made By Ld Ao Which He Could Not Have Made As The Jurisdiction Of The Ld Ao Was Limited.

Section 2(14)Section 234ASection 50C

Section 50C. 7. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) erred in charging interest U/s 234A, 234B and 234C.” 2. The hearing of the appeal was concluded through video conference in view of the prevailing situation of Covid-19 Pandemic. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee

BABULAL ALIAS BALU RAM,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), JODHPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 195/JODH/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur25 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri R.K. Saraf, C.A Department by: Shri K.C. Badhok, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri K.C. Badhok, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 234ASection 282BSection 292BSection 45Section 50CSection 53A

capital gains. 7. THAT the learned ITO has erred in calculating surcharge, education cess and interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C. 8. THAT any other grounds of appeal may please be permitted to be added, altered, amended or deleted on or before the date of hearing of appeal. 9. THAT the appellant prays that the proceedings under section

UMRAV SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1, SRI GANGANAGAR

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

ITA 781/JODH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur30 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Radhika Gupta, CA (Adjournment Application)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar Gehlot, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 144Section 147Section 234ASection 249(3)Section 69A

3. That, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, erred in sustaining addition of Rs. 60,00,000/- made to the total income of the Appellant under the head Short Term Capital Gain. 4. That, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, erred in sustaining addition of interest levied under the provisions of section 234A and 234B

UMRAV SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1, SRI GANGANAGAR

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

ITA 783/JODH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur30 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Radhika Gupta, CA (Adjournment Application)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar Gehlot, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 144Section 147Section 234ASection 249(3)Section 69A

3. That, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, erred in sustaining addition of Rs. 60,00,000/- made to the total income of the Appellant under the head Short Term Capital Gain. 4. That, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, erred in sustaining addition of interest levied under the provisions of section 234A and 234B

UMRAV SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1, SRI GANGANAGAR

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

ITA 782/JODH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur30 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Radhika Gupta, CA (Adjournment Application)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar Gehlot, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 144Section 147Section 234ASection 249(3)Section 69A

3. That, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, erred in sustaining addition of Rs. 60,00,000/- made to the total income of the Appellant under the head Short Term Capital Gain. 4. That, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, erred in sustaining addition of interest levied under the provisions of section 234A and 234B

SMT. MANJULA DEVI JAIN ,PALI vs. ITO,WARD-2, PALI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 478/JODH/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur20 Mar 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainsmt. Manjula Devi Jain Vs Income Tax Officer, 1-35, Housing Board, Ward-2, Pali. Pali. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aampj4848D

Section 234BSection 68

234B and 234C is bad in law and on facts. 5. The appellant pray for suitable costs. 6. The appellant craves liberty to add, amend, alter and modify any of the ground of appeal on or before its hearing before your honour.” 2. In ground 1 of the appeal, the assessee had challenged the protective addition partly sustained