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.

5 results for “capital gains”+ Section 2(47)(vi)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai593Delhi478Bangalore141Ahmedabad140Chennai125Jaipur118Hyderabad93Chandigarh91Cochin68Kolkata61Raipur54Indore44Nagpur39Rajkot28Pune28Guwahati25Lucknow19Surat14Visakhapatnam10Cuttack9Dehradun6Patna5Jodhpur4Amritsar4Agra2

Key Topics

Section 1486Section 1445Section 455Addition to Income4Section 1473Section 271(1)(c)3Capital Gains3Penalty3Section 2502Section 133(6)

AMIT KUMAR VERMA,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 6(1), PATNA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 357/PAT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna04 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

capital gain. The expression 'transfer' is defined in Section 2(47) of the Act. The provisions of clause (v) and (vi

HARI NARAYAN GUPTA (HUF),PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 6 (5), PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

2
Section 2(47)(v)2
Long Term Capital Gains2
ITA 384/PAT/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Patna23 Feb 2026AY 2011-12
Section 133(6)Section 148Section 2(47)(v)Section 50C

Sections 2(47)(v) and (vi) of the Act. Further, M/s.\nGodrej Properties Ltd., did not have exclusive possession of the land but had only\npermitted user/ license to the land from the Respondent. The impugned order further\nrecords the fact that no development activities was carried on the land owned by the\nAssessee and in view of the market

VINOD YADAV,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 6 (3), PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

ITA 398/PAT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna23 Feb 2026AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Chowdhary, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, DR
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)(ii)Section 50CSection 53A

Sections 2(47)(v) and (vi) of the Act. Further, M/s. Godrej Properties Ltd., did not\nhave exclusive possession of the land but had only permitted user/ license to the land\nfrom the Respondent. The impugned order further records the fact that no development\nactivities was carried on the land owned by the Assessee and in view of the market

RENU DEVI,PATNA vs. ITO, PATNA

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

ITA 672/PAT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna25 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 672/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Renu Devi,……………………………....….………Appellant D/79, P.C. Colony, Lohia Nagar, Kankarbagh, Patna-800020, Bihar [Pan:Algpd4522P] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………...…….Respondent Ward-6(2), Patna Appearances By: Shri Sudipta Sannigrahi, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: June 24, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: August 25, 2025 O R D E R

Section 144Section 148Section 2(47)(v)Section 271(1)(c)Section 45Section 48

2(47)(v) and (vi) as part performance as per section 53A of the transfer of property Act and treat mere signing of JDA as date of transfer. For that, on the fact & circumstances of the case, the learned (4) Addl/JCIT(A) has erred in Law and on facts and completely ignored that no progress was made in the construction

DIPAK KUMAR SINGH & SONS HUF,PATNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(2), PATNA

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

ITA 647/PAT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna20 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee claimed that the delay was on account of ignorance of law and the assessee was alerted for filing the appeal only when they received a notice proposing levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) has discussed the issue of delayed filing with the help of several authorities on the subject and has declined to condone the said delay due to which the appeal was dismissed. 3.1 Further aggrieved with the action of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 45Section 54F

2 I.T.A. No. 324/Pat/2018 Amit Kumar Singh small flats on the same floor comprising of a single residential unit only which also qualified for exemption under Section 54F of the Act. 6. For that the learned assessing officer erred in computing income from capital gains solely on the basis of the development agreement without taking notice of Section