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.

19 results for “capital gains”+ Section 35(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,595Delhi1,144Chennai395Jaipur344Bangalore324Ahmedabad308Hyderabad230Kolkata209Chandigarh198Indore131Pune129Raipur112Cochin107Nagpur80Surat73Rajkot60Visakhapatnam49Lucknow48Amritsar32Guwahati29Jodhpur20Patna19Agra17Dehradun17Cuttack17Panaji10Ranchi10Allahabad8Varanasi5Jabalpur4

Key Topics

Section 25024Section 153A15Section 14414Section 14814Addition to Income14Section 14713Capital Gains12Section 143(3)7Reopening of Assessment6

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)

1. There should be a contract for consideration; 2. It should be in writing; 3. It should be signed by the transferor, 4. It should pertain to transfer of immovable property: 5. The transferee should have taken possession of the property; 6. The transferee should be ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. 6.6 Likewise, the Bombay

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

Search & Seizure6
Section 143(2)5
Section 133A5

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 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882) The appellant stated in his grounds of appeal that he did not receive the consideration with respect to the transaction. However, the receipt of consideration is irrelevant to arising of capital gains. What is material for Capital Gains is whether the possession of the asset in question

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

Capital Gain of Rs.10,35,240/- ………… of penny stock of Multiplus Resources Ltd. for the AY 2011-12. Hence, I consider the case to be fit for issuing notice u/s. 148 of the I. T. Act, 1961 in the case of Shri Amar Kasera HUF for AY 2011-12. Put up before the Ld. JCIT, Central Range-1, Patna

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

Capital Gain of Rs.10,35,240/- ………… of penny stock of Multiplus Resources Ltd. for the AY 2011-12. Hence, I consider the case to be fit for issuing notice u/s. 148 of the I. T. Act, 1961 in the case of Shri Amar Kasera HUF for AY 2011-12. Put up before the Ld. JCIT, Central Range-1, Patna

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

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

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

Capital Gain of Rs.10,35,240/- ………… of penny stock of Multiplus Resources Ltd. for the AY 2011-12. Hence, I consider the case to be fit for issuing notice u/s. 148 of the I. T. Act, 1961 in the case of Shri Amar Kasera HUF for AY 2011-12. Put up before the Ld. JCIT, Central Range-1, Patna

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

Capital Gain of Rs.10,35,240/- ………… of penny stock of Multiplus Resources Ltd. for the AY 2011-12. Hence, I consider the case to be fit for issuing notice u/s. 148 of the I. T. Act, 1961 in the case of Shri Amar Kasera HUF for AY 2011-12. Put up before the Ld. JCIT, Central Range-1, Patna

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

Capital Gain of Rs.10,35,240/- ………… of penny stock of Multiplus Resources Ltd. for the AY 2011-12. Hence, I consider the case to be fit for issuing notice u/s. 148 of the I. T. Act, 1961 in the case of Shri Amar Kasera HUF for AY 2011-12. Put up before the Ld. JCIT, Central Range-1, Patna

MANOJ KUMAR,PATNA vs. ITO WARD 4(4), PATNA, PATNA

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

ITA 123/PAT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna20 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SONJOY SARMA (Judicial Member)

For Respondent: Sh. Manab Adak, JCIT
Section 143(2)Section 250Section 46Section 548Section 54BSection 96

1,00,35,508/- was added. 3. Aggrieved from the above order, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). During the course of assessment proceedings detailed written submissions were made which is incorporated by the Ld. CIT(A) in his order. During the course of appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that the assessee is required

SANGEETA GOEL,PATNA vs. CCIT, NFAC, PATNA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 211/PAT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Patna12 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 211/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sangeeta Goel Chief Commissioner Of Income-Tax/Nfac 506, Santosha Complex Vs Fraser Road Bander Bagicha Patna - 800001 [Pan: Acbpg0887A] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra, Jcit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/03/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/04/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per, Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 30/11/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. A. That The Initiation Of Proceeding U/S 147 R.W.S 148 Of The It Act, 1961 Based On Alleged Information Of Bogus Trade Amounting To Rs. 35,09,213/- In The Shares & Securities Of M/S Ayaan Commercial Pvt Ltd Being Bereft Of Fact & Assessee Having Not Carried On Any Such Transaction, The Assumption Of Jurisdiction U/S 147 Of The It Act, 1961 Is Bad In Law. B. That The Ld. A.O. Having Rejected The Objection Of The Assessee Although These Facts Are Brought On Record His Action In Doing So Is Bad In Law. C. That The Reopening U/S 147 Was Based On Mere Suspicion & Surmises, The Proceeding U/S 147 R.W.S. 148 Of The It Act, 1961 Is Bad In Law.

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra, JCIT D/R
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

35,60,613/- and having made certain observations, came to a conclusion that long term capital gain is bogus in nature and denied the exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act. Thereafter, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A) taking a legal ground challenging the initiation of proceedings u/s 147/148 of the Act but failed to succeed

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)

35,000/- Om Prakash Kuamr 27-11-2008 SBI-436 297105 69,000/- Omkar Kumar 05-01-2009 Dnea-285 975937 4,30,000/- R.S. Kumar 17-06-2008 SBI-347 735724 4,70,000/- Satyendra Sharma 26-03-2009 Dena-285 975985 96,000/- Subhash Kumar 31-05-2008 PNB-9926 821336 1,50,000/- Subhash Kumar

AJAY KUMAR,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 6 (3), PATNA, PATNA

ITA 392/PAT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna21 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 147Section 156Section 250Section 271(1)(C)

section 271(1)(C) passed by the ITO Ward 4(1), Patna through speed post on 06.04.2024, than appellant immediate consult to another Advocate for filing appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT, Appellant further pray that appellant having great interest in the case. Therefore on the ground of natural justice kindly condone the delay for filing of appeal before

SEEMA SRIVASTAVA,PATNA vs. ITO,DC/AC-6, PATNA, PATNA

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 715/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna06 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 250(2)Section 48Section 54Section 54F

capital gain of Rs. 2,58,34,383/- shown by the assessee in the return of income. However, the exemption u/s 54 of the Act was not allowed as the immovable property shown by the assessee was not a residential house. Further, the exemption u/s 54F of the Act was also not allowed as the assessee neither claimed any exemption

ZAIMUR RAHMAN,EAST CHAMPARAN vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NFAC, DELHI

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

ITA 321/PAT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna07 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115BSection 144BSection 147Section 148Section 149Section 250Section 68Section 69A

1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income. 15. For that the ld. assessing officer has erred in initiating penalty proceeding under Section 271F of the Act for non filing of ITR. 16. For that the ld. assessing officer has erred in not providing the appellant the reason recorded for initiation of reassessment proceeding under Section

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

1) were issued by the ld. Assessing Officer requiring details of land and payment details with mode of payment but the assessee did not comply to the notices issued to him. The ld. Assessing Officer left with no other option, completed the assessment assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.24,05,540/- (Rs.22,28,248/- minus Rs.9

SHRI SHAH AFROZE HOSSAIN,BHAGALPUR vs. DY. CIT, CENT, CIR-2, PATNA, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms indicated above

ITA 711/PAT/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.711/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2022-23 Shri Shah Afroze Hossain.….…………………....…………………....Appellant 12, Shahganjhi, Habibpur, Bhagalpur, Bihar-812006. [Pan: Aapph1112D] Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-2, Patna..………....…..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manish Rastogi, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Md. Shadab Ahmed, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 14, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 30, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Patna-3 (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 22.10.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2022–23 Declaring A Total Income Of ₹75,56,770, Comprising The Income From Business Of ₹6,54,569, Long- Term Capital Gains: ₹49,60,293 & Income From Other Sources Of ₹19,35,912. A Search & Seizure Operation Under Section 132 Of The Act Was Carried Out On 29.12.2022 At The Residential & Business Premises Of The Assessee Pursuant To A Warrant Of Authorisation Issued By The Director Of Investigation, Patna. During The Course Of The Search

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 50CSection 50C(2)

capital gains: ₹49,60,293 and income from other sources of ₹19,35,912. A search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Act was carried out on 29.12.2022 at the residential and business premises of the assessee pursuant to a warrant of authorisation issued by the Director of Investigation, Patna. During the course of the search, I.T.A. No.711/PAT/2024

SHYAMENDRA KUMAR,PATNA vs. ITO WARD 6(5), PATNA

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

ITA 332/PAT/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Patna17 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.332/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shyamendra Kumar..… ……….. ……..……………………....Appellant Sahay Nagar, Jalalpur, Bailey Road, Patna-801506. [Pan: Akmpk4312R] Vs. Ito, Ward-6(5), Patna……. ….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 16, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 17, 2024 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 21.09.2023 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 Is An Individual Who Entered Into A Land Development Agreement With M/S Laliteshwar Builder, Patna In The Financial Year 2010-11 Relevant To Assessment Year 2011-12. However, The Assessee Failed To File Any Return Of Income For The Relevant Assessment Year, Consequently, A Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Was Issued On 28.03.2018 To Bring To Tax The Income Pertaining To Capital Gains Arising Out Of The Transactions Of The Land Development Agreement. Subsequently, A Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act Was Issued, However, There Was No Compliance From The Assessee. Due To This Non-

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)

capital gain. 3. Aggrieved by the above assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) issued multiple notices to the assessee on different dates i.e. 05.02.2021, 03.11.2022, 03.05.2023, 24.08.2023, 04.09.2023 and 12.09.2023 but the assessee failed to appear or respond before the ld. CIT(A). Even notices sent to the registered email

ITO, WARD-2(1), PATNA vs. M/S SUN COMTECH PVT LTD, PATNA

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

ITA 108/PAT/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Patna24 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 148Section 250

35 PM SELL 4 113.20 5000 2264000.00 1 ZINC FUTURES 21/03/201104:03:06 PM SELL 12 113.20 5000 6792000.00 9 SAKET SINGHAL B_S Qty Price Multiple SS Product Name Trade Time Value Factor Gap NICKEL FUTURES 16/03/201101:14:27 PM BUY 3 1184.70 250 888525.00 0 NICKEL FUTURES 16/03/201101:14:36 PM SELL 3 1149.80 250 862350.00 1 SHRESTHA

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

MAHENDRA PRASAD,EAST CHAMPARAN vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, ITD, DELHI, DELHI

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

ITA 717/PAT/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Patna20 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 24Section 250Section 80C

Gains from I.T.A. No.: 717/PAT/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Mahendra Prasad. Business or Profession" and income of Rs. 5,00,466/- under the head "Income from Other Sources". The assessee had offered logistics services (transport) to the Bihar State Food & Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. in Motihari and the Bihar State Warehousing Corporation in Patna, in addition to engaging in wholesale