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.

2 results for “capital gains”+ Section 50B(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai98Delhi32Chennai23Raipur18Kolkata16Bangalore14Hyderabad6Amritsar5Ahmedabad5Cochin4Karnataka4Telangana3Pune3Nagpur2SC2Indore2Visakhapatnam1Calcutta1Surat1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1

Key Topics

Section 2635Section 143(3)2

M/S. DATTA DAIRY PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.,BULDHANA vs. ITO, WARD-1, , KHAMGAON

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

ITA 96/NAG/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur02 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Miss. J.S.Thakar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(ix)

capital gain at all has arisen to the Assessee there is no question or occasion for reducing the amount of advance money from cost for which the asset was acquired. Similarly section 56(2)(ix) has also no application as it came into force only on 01.04.2015 and hence not applicable in A.Y.2011-12. Similarly section 56(2)(x) is also

LALITA SANJIVREDDY BODKURWAR,NAGPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, NAGPUR

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 90/NAG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur12 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Abhay Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Kanojiya, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

50B which could have been prima facie applicable to the case which was in the nature of a slump sale. Therefore, invoking of Section 263 is justified and the contention of the assessee is without merit. 6. Thus the Assessing Officer has failed to verify the facts of the case, the details of which are mentioned in the show cause