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.

2 results for “capital gains”+ Section 46Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi123Mumbai105Jaipur52Chennai40Hyderabad38Ahmedabad29Surat21Kolkata20Pune17Indore13Lucknow11Chandigarh11Panaji9Nagpur8Bangalore8Visakhapatnam7Rajkot7Raipur6Amritsar5Patna5Cuttack4Ranchi4Jabalpur2Jodhpur2Dehradun2Cochin2Guwahati1

Key Topics

Section 69A5Section 1473Section 80C2Section 682Deduction2Addition to Income2

SHYAM SUNDAR INANI,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD, PHALODI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 675/JODH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Karni Dan, Addl. CIT(Sr. D.R)
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 69ASection 80C

capital gains without granting credit for cost of construction incurred from business income in earlier years; c) The trading results having been accepted, no separate addition under section 69A was sustainable. Reliance was placed on judicial precedents to support the submissions. 3.4 In response, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) supported the orders of the lower authorities and submitted that

AMRINDER SINGH JOSAN,SRI GANGANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-3,, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result, the appeal bearing ITA 492/Jodh/2023 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 492/JODH/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur15 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 48Section 68

section 48 of IT Act which is mandatory and still available on the statue therefore the order passed by the assessing officer is not sustainable.” 3. Brief fact of the case is that the assessee’s case was reopened u/s 148. The addition was made related to deposit of cash in bank account amount of Rs.5