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.

3 results for “capital gains”+ Section 249(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai260Delhi103Ahmedabad66Jaipur58Chennai51Chandigarh47Bangalore42Pune31Nagpur30Kolkata29Raipur29Hyderabad26Indore21Ranchi15Cochin11Guwahati7Surat7Jodhpur6Visakhapatnam6Jabalpur6Amritsar4Lucknow4Dehradun4Patna3Rajkot2Panaji2Allahabad1

Key Topics

Section 2502Section 1442Section 10(37)2Section 45(5)2Section 54B2Section 250(6)2

KAMLESH KUMAR,PATNA vs. ITO WARD- 6 (4), PATNA

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

ITA 147/PAT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna07 Aug 2025AY 2015-16
Section 144Section 250

3) of section 210, the total income of\nthe latest previous year in respect of which the assessee has been assessed\nby way of regular assessment or the total income returned by the assessee\nin any return of income furnished by him for any subsequent previous year,\nwhichever is higher, shall be taken and income-tax thereon shall be\ncalculated

BAIJU ROY,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD-4(2), PATNA

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

ITA 13/PAT/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna02 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

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

Section 10(37)Section 133(6)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 45(5)Section 54BSection 54F

capital gain : Rs.1,25,05,763/- Total income : Rs.1,27,58,955/- Or Rs.1,27,58,960/- Assessed u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 on a total income of Rs.1,27,58,960/-. Issue Demand Notice, Challan and a copy of the Order to the assessee. Penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) is also initiated for inaccurate particular

DILIP KUMAR SINGH AND SONS,PATNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(1), PATNA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 312/PAT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna19 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.312/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dilip Kumar Singh & Sons….. ……..……………………....Appellant C/O Dilip Kr. Singh, East Lohanipur, Pustakalaya Lane, Kadamkuan, Patna- 800003. [Pan: Aaihd8902J] Vs. Ito, Ward-4(1), Patna……. ….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri D. V. Pathy, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 17, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 19, 2024 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 01.02.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Care Are That The Assessee Entered Into A Land Development Agreement With M/S Sankalp Construction During The Relevant Assessment Year. The Assessing Officer Noticed That As Per The Agreement, The Total Value Of Land Was Rs.4,41,14,025/- & The Value Of Share Owned By The Assessee At One Sixth Share Of 50% Of Land Owned By The Assessee Which Stands At Rs.36,76,169/-. On Perusal Of Records, The Assessing Officer Found That The Assessee Has Not Filed Any Return Of Income Nor Made Any Compliance, Therefore, He Issued Notice U/S 148

Section 144Section 148Section 249(2)Section 250Section 250(6)

capital gains has escaped assessment. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer completed assessment assessing total income of Rs.36,76,169/- raising tax demand of Rs.12,94,968/- vide order dated 23.12.2019 u/s 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act. 4. Dissatisfied with the above order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) against the assessment order challenging the validity