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 148(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,047Delhi1,561Chennai601Jaipur589Bangalore573Ahmedabad519Hyderabad427Kolkata418Surat372Pune316Chandigarh245Indore236Cochin186Karnataka174Visakhapatnam163Agra106Nagpur99Raipur95Rajkot94Amritsar80Lucknow80Calcutta60Panaji54Patna46Guwahati42Jabalpur28Jodhpur25Ranchi24Cuttack19SC19Dehradun17Allahabad14Telangana11Varanasi6Kerala5Rajasthan4Punjab & Haryana2Orissa2Andhra Pradesh2K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 14810Section 143(3)2Section 143(1)2Reassessment2Reopening of Assessment2

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) vs. M/S. ROLAND EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST

ITA/25/2022HC Orissa09 Feb 2023

Bench: DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR (CJ),MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

2. The principal question which stands posited for our consideration is whether the Assessing Officer3 was justified in invoking Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 19614 basis the report which had been received from the Investigation Wing. The assessee appears to have principally asserted that this was clearly a case of “borrowed satisfaction” since full and true disclosures

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 vs. PARBATI MOHAPATRA

ITA/19/2022HC Orissa08 Feb 2023

Bench: DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR (CJ),MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

Section 143(1)
Section 143(3)
Section 148

2. The principal question which stands posited for our consideration is whether the Assessing Officer3 was justified in invoking Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 19614 basis the report which had been received from the Investigation Wing. The assessee appears to have principally asserted that this was clearly a case of “borrowed satisfaction” since full and true disclosures