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.

4 results for “capital gains”+ Section 74clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,944Delhi1,605Bangalore708Ahmedabad488Chennai448Jaipur335Kolkata332Hyderabad245Surat231Pune192Chandigarh192Indore154Karnataka142Raipur133Cochin127Visakhapatnam60Calcutta59Cuttack53Rajkot51Nagpur48Panaji44Guwahati36Lucknow29Amritsar27Telangana24SC17Ranchi13Jodhpur11Agra10Varanasi8Dehradun8Patna4Rajasthan4Allahabad4Jabalpur3Kerala2K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Addition to Income4Section 1443Section 54F3Natural Justice3Section 2502Section 143(3)2Section 250(6)2Section 234A2Section 271(1)(c)2

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

74,403/- which was lower than the 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

Disallowance2
Limitation/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)

capital gain. 7. For that the CIT (Appeal) grossly erred in passing ex-parte order confirming levy and demand of interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C levied and demanded in the order passed by the Ld. assessing officer is unjustified and illegal. 8. For that the CIT (Appeal) erred in passing ex-parte order confirming initiation of penal proceeding under section

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 Patna22 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

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

capital gain. 7. For that the CIT (Appeal) grossly erred in passing ex-parte order confirming levy and demand of interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C levied and demanded in the order passed by the Ld. assessing officer is unjustified and illegal. 8. For that the CIT (Appeal) erred in passing ex-parte order confirming initiation of penal proceeding under section

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

74,65,920/- pertaining to M/s. Subh Commodities Pvt. Ltd. and loss amounting to ₹30,24,457/- in respect of M/s. Marina Commotrade Pvt. Ltd. should not be treated as manipulative/fictitious loss and disallowed accordingly. Reference was also made to the NMCE, Ahmedabad calling for trade ledger of the assessee company and on analysing the trade ledger received from