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.

3 results for “capital gains”+ Section 248clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi469Mumbai355Chennai130Karnataka109Bangalore107Ahmedabad72Jaipur72Cochin57Calcutta51Pune45Kolkata44Visakhapatnam41Raipur39Hyderabad38Chandigarh32Nagpur20Cuttack19Ranchi16Indore15Surat11Panaji11Rajkot9Amritsar9Lucknow7Dehradun6Telangana6SC5Patna3Rajasthan3Agra1Andhra Pradesh1Varanasi1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 2504Section 250(6)2Section 234A2Section 271(1)(c)2Disallowance2Addition to Income2Natural Justice2Limitation/Time-bar2

RUSHATAM KHAN,PURNEA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, PURNEA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2013-

ITA 328/PAT/2018[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Patna22 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 234ASection 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

248/- a sum of (Rs. 1,65,670/- +24,578/-) relevant with two business M/s Khan Traders and M/s Khan Brothers discussed, disallowed and added at Para A of the order passed by the Ld. assessing officer based on adhoc, presumption, surmise, inference and ignoring facts and circumstances of the case. 3. For that the CIT (Appeal) erred in passing

RUSHATAM KHAN,PURNEA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, PURNEA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2013-

ITA 329/PAT/2018[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Patna
22 Jul 2022
AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 234ASection 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

248/- a sum of (Rs. 1,65,670/- +24,578/-) relevant with two business M/s Khan Traders and M/s Khan Brothers discussed, disallowed and added at Para A of the order passed by the Ld. assessing officer based on adhoc, presumption, surmise, inference and ignoring facts and circumstances of the case. 3. For that the CIT (Appeal) erred in passing

BINOD KUMAR KEDIA,GOPALGANJ vs. ITO, WARD- 2 (4), SIWAN

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

ITA 72/PAT/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Patna28 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 72/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Binod Kumar Kedia,……………...…….…………Appellant S/O Latejeevan Ram Kedia, Marwari Mohalla, Gopalganj-841428, Bihar [Pan:Afhpk1798P] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………....Respondent Ward-2(4), Siwan Appearances By: Shri K.P. Jalan, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: May 22, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: July 28, 2025 O R D E R

Section 148Section 250Section 50C

248/- minus Rs.9,57,752/- plus the returned income of Rs.1,77,290/). 3. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). The ld. CIT(Appeals) disposed off the appeal vide order under section 250 dated 18.12.2018 with certain directions to the ld. Assessing Officer and when assessee filed in Form no. 35 only