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.

13 results for “capital gains”+ Section 23(1)(c)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,487Delhi1,077Chennai410Bangalore332Jaipur329Ahmedabad297Hyderabad223Kolkata187Chandigarh183Pune105Indore104Raipur99Cochin79Nagpur60Visakhapatnam51Surat47Rajkot43Lucknow43Amritsar38Panaji32Guwahati29Cuttack24Dehradun20Agra14Jodhpur14Patna13Jabalpur10Allahabad7Varanasi6

Key Topics

Section 153A15Section 25011Section 14811Addition to Income9Section 143(3)7Capital Gains7Penalty7Reopening of Assessment6Search & Seizure6

SHARDINDU PRASAD SINGH,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD-6(4), PATNA

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

ITA 630/PAT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna15 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Section 50C of the income Tax Act, 1961 nor they are otherwise attracted in the present case. 16. Ld. AO has erred in determining LTCG at 1,24,95,128/- as against value of land of 54,40,000/- as on date of agreement. 17. Ld. AO has failed to consider that the capital gain pursuant to development agreement will

AMAR KASERA (HUF),PATNA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, PATNA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Section 271(1)(c)5
Section 1475
Section 1445
ITA 179/PAT/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 250

C. Cables Ltd. (ITA No. 335/2015). In the case of Amar Lal Bajaj v ACIT (2013) 37 Taxmann.com 7 (Mum) (Trib) the CIT accorded his sanction/approval by simply affixing "approved" at the bottom of the proposal prepared by A.O. It was held that such approval cannot be construed as sanction/approval u/s 151(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961. Accordingly

AMAR KASERA (HUF),PATNA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, PATNA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 183/PAT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 250

C. Cables Ltd. (ITA No. 335/2015). In the case of Amar Lal Bajaj v ACIT (2013) 37 Taxmann.com 7 (Mum) (Trib) the CIT accorded his sanction/approval by simply affixing "approved" at the bottom of the proposal prepared by A.O. It was held that such approval cannot be construed as sanction/approval u/s 151(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961. Accordingly

AMAR KASERA (HUF),PATNA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, PATNA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 182/PAT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 250

C. Cables Ltd. (ITA No. 335/2015). In the case of Amar Lal Bajaj v ACIT (2013) 37 Taxmann.com 7 (Mum) (Trib) the CIT accorded his sanction/approval by simply affixing "approved" at the bottom of the proposal prepared by A.O. It was held that such approval cannot be construed as sanction/approval u/s 151(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961. Accordingly

AMAR KASERA (HUF),PATNA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, PATNA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 181/PAT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 250

C. Cables Ltd. (ITA No. 335/2015). In the case of Amar Lal Bajaj v ACIT (2013) 37 Taxmann.com 7 (Mum) (Trib) the CIT accorded his sanction/approval by simply affixing "approved" at the bottom of the proposal prepared by A.O. It was held that such approval cannot be construed as sanction/approval u/s 151(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961. Accordingly

AMAR KASERA (HUF),PATNA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, PATNA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 180/PAT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 250

C. Cables Ltd. (ITA No. 335/2015). In the case of Amar Lal Bajaj v ACIT (2013) 37 Taxmann.com 7 (Mum) (Trib) the CIT accorded his sanction/approval by simply affixing "approved" at the bottom of the proposal prepared by A.O. It was held that such approval cannot be construed as sanction/approval u/s 151(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961. Accordingly

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

23,575/- and entered into a 1 Renu Devi development agreement with Aparna Architect and Engicons Pvt. Ltd. (Builder/Developer) vide Development Agreement 10772 on the same day dated 05/12/2015. The assessee had no taxable income during the Assessment year 2016-17 and hence no regular return was filed by the assessee for the Assessment year 2016-17. The ld. Assessing

MASUDAN TANTI,BHAGALPUR vs. CIT, NFAC, DELHI

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

ITA 29/PAT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Patna22 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri R. N. Bedi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Lalita Kumari, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 44

capital account etc. A copy of the notice u/s 142(1) dated 02.12.2021 was also got served physically through the Verification Unit but despite being provided with several opportunities, no compliance was made nor any reply was filed. Meanwhile, information was collected from UCO Bank and it was found that the total amount credited in the bank account

DOLLY GHOSH,BHAGALPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 PATNA, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 182/PAT/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Patna08 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

23), or by a fund or trust or institution referred to in sub-clause (iv) or sub-clause (v) or by any university or other educational institution referred to in sub-clause (iiiad) or sub-clause (vi) or by any hospital or other institution referred to in sub-clause (iiiae) or sub-clause (via) of clause (23C) of section

VIVEK KUMAR RANA,PATNA vs. ASSESSEMENT UNIT, DELHI

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

ITA 115/PAT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna24 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 115/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Vivek Kumar Rana,…….……….………..………Appellant 101, Artak Apartment, Ashiana Road, B.V. College, S.O. Rukanpura, Patna-800014, Bihar [Pan:Adhpr8630D] -Vs.- Assessment Unit, Delhi,………………….…....Respondent Ito/Nfac, Delhi Appearances By: Shri Manish Sinha, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: June 17, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: June 24, 2025 O R D E R

Section 139Section 271(1)(c)

23,000/-, received interest on securities amounting to Rs.6,89,396/- and paid credit card bills through SBI Cards amounting to Rs.4,31,572/-. During the assessment proceedings, the ld. Assessing Officer issued notices under sections 148 and 142(1) of the Act and in reply, the assessee informed that he had already shown the capital gains from sale

I.T.O. vs. M/S KUMAR CONSTRUCLTION,

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 10/PAT/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Patna17 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(b)Section 40A(3)

C-15, Vijay Nagar, Near Petrol Pump, Rukanpura, Baily Road, Patna-800014 [PAN:AAGFM0031K] Appearances by: Shri Rupesh Agrawal, CIT, Sr. D.R., appeared on behalf of the Revenue Shri K.M. Mishra, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the assessee Date of concluding the hearing : August 23, 2023 Date of pronouncing the order : October

VEENA MISHRA THROUGH NITISH MISHRA,PATNA vs. ACIT, CENT.CIR-1, PATNA, PATNA

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

ITA 152/PAT/2025[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Patna08 Sept 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

c) and 271(1)(b) of the Act in the fact and circumstances of this case and Ld. CIT Appeal erred in confirming the same. 14. For that the ld. Assessing officer has erred in charging interest under the provisions of section 234A, 234B and 234C of the income tax Act, 1961 on the total income as computed

SHIVENDU SHEKHAR SINGH,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD6(5), PATNA

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

ITA 689/PAT/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Patna04 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 253(3)Section 271(1)(c)

c) of the Act by the ld. Assessing Officer was confirmed, despite of the fact that all the communication details like email ID and contact no. was correctly mentioned on the appellant’s portal for the communication of notices/letter/orders and in consequence, the assessee was not able to file appeal against the said order within the prescribed limit as stipulated