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 90clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,223Delhi673Chennai329Bangalore213Ahmedabad208Jaipur198Hyderabad161Kolkata147Chandigarh92Raipur74Pune74Cochin69Indore68Nagpur57Lucknow46Surat41Rajkot40Visakhapatnam35Amritsar24Cuttack17Jabalpur15Patna13Dehradun11Jodhpur7Guwahati6Ranchi6Varanasi5Allahabad4Agra4Panaji3

Key Topics

Addition to Income12Section 143(3)8Section 235Section 2505Section 1445Capital Gains5Section 1484Penalty4Section 142(1)3Section 50C

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)

capital gains to the total income of the assessee ITA No.: 357/PAT/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Amit Kumar Verma. and assessed the total income of the assessee at ₹90,82,570/- u/s 144/147 of the Act. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who issued several notices through ITBA portal

3
Section 270A2
Natural Justice2

DCIT, CIRCLE-4, PATNA vs. KUMAR ARUNODAYA, PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, the appeals of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross-objections of the assessee are also dismissed

ITA 89/PAT/2020[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Patna07 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(3)Section 23

capital gain should not be added to the income of the assessee due to non declaration of the same in the return of income. The ld. A.R argued that by misconstruing the provisions of section 139(9) of the Act and 292B of the Act, the AO has treated the return of income as invalid which is wrong

ACIT, CIRCLE-4, PATNA vs. KUMAR ARUNODAYA, PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, the appeals of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross-objections of the assessee are also dismissed

ITA 94/PAT/2020[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Patna07 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(3)Section 23

capital gain should not be added to the income of the assessee due to non declaration of the same in the return of income. The ld. A.R argued that by misconstruing the provisions of section 139(9) of the Act and 292B of the Act, the AO has treated the return of income as invalid which is wrong

KUMAR ARUNODAYA,PATNA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 6, PATNA [NEW – DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 2, PATNA], PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, the appeals of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross-objections of the assessee are also dismissed

ITA 96/PAT/2021[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Patna07 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(3)Section 23

capital gain should not be added to the income of the assessee due to non declaration of the same in the return of income. The ld. A.R argued that by misconstruing the provisions of section 139(9) of the Act and 292B of the Act, the AO has treated the return of income as invalid which is wrong

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA vs. KUMAR ARUNODAYA, PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, the appeals of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross-objections of the assessee are also dismissed

ITA 98/PAT/2021[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Patna07 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(3)Section 23

capital gain should not be added to the income of the assessee due to non declaration of the same in the return of income. The ld. A.R argued that by misconstruing the provisions of section 139(9) of the Act and 292B of the Act, the AO has treated the return of income as invalid which is wrong

KUMAR ARUNOSAYA,PATNA vs. A.O., CIRCLE-6, PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, the appeals of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross-objections of the assessee are also dismissed

ITA 33/PAT/2020[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Patna07 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(3)Section 23

capital gain should not be added to the income of the assessee due to non declaration of the same in the return of income. The ld. A.R argued that by misconstruing the provisions of section 139(9) of the Act and 292B of the Act, the AO has treated the return of income as invalid which is wrong

HAMID ALI,ROHTAS vs. ITO, WARD- 3 (4), SASARAM

In the result, ITA No.356/Pat/2025 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and ITA No

ITA 357/PAT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna10 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Rakesh Mishraita Nos.356 & 357/Pat/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19 Hamid Ali…..……………..……………………….……….……….……Appellant C/O Gulam Murtaza Zakki Shaheed, Sasaram, Rohtas, Bihar – 821115. [Pan: Atppa8563N] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(4), Sasaram.…………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri A.K. Rastogi, Sr. Adv. & Shri Rakesh Kumar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 06, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 10, 2025 Order Per Madhumita Roy: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Both Dated 12.12.2024 Passed By Nfac, Delhi Arising Out Of The Orders Dated 23.02.2021 & 23.08.2021 Passed U/S 143(3) & U/S 270A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”] Respectively For Assessment Year 2018-19. Ita No.356/Pat/2025 Relates To Quantum Order Whereas Ita No.357/Pat/2025 Relates To Penalty Order.

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 50C(2)(a)Section 53C

90,224/- on sale of immovable property. He has shown total sale consideration of Rs.27,00,000/- and claimed index cost of acquisition of Rs.9,45,200/- and index improvement cost of Rs.15,64,576/-. The assessee declared stamp duty value of the said property at Rs.43,17,000/-. It is the case of the revenue that in spite

HAMID ALI,ROHTAS vs. ITO, WARD- 3 (4), SASARAM

In the result, ITA No.356/Pat/2025 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and ITA No

ITA 356/PAT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna10 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Rakesh Mishraita Nos.356 & 357/Pat/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19 Hamid Ali…..……………..……………………….……….……….……Appellant C/O Gulam Murtaza Zakki Shaheed, Sasaram, Rohtas, Bihar – 821115. [Pan: Atppa8563N] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(4), Sasaram.…………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri A.K. Rastogi, Sr. Adv. & Shri Rakesh Kumar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 06, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 10, 2025 Order Per Madhumita Roy: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Both Dated 12.12.2024 Passed By Nfac, Delhi Arising Out Of The Orders Dated 23.02.2021 & 23.08.2021 Passed U/S 143(3) & U/S 270A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”] Respectively For Assessment Year 2018-19. Ita No.356/Pat/2025 Relates To Quantum Order Whereas Ita No.357/Pat/2025 Relates To Penalty Order.

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 50C(2)(a)Section 53C

90,224/- on sale of immovable property. He has shown total sale consideration of Rs.27,00,000/- and claimed index cost of acquisition of Rs.9,45,200/- and index improvement cost of Rs.15,64,576/-. The assessee declared stamp duty value of the said property at Rs.43,17,000/-. It is the case of the revenue that in spite

SUBODH KUMAR SINGH,PATNA vs. ITO WARD -6(2), PATNA

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

ITA 258/PAT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna10 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 258/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Subodh Kumar Singh,…………………..…………Appellant B-1, Vaishavi Apartment, Behind Petrol Pump, Sadagaut Ashram, Patna-800010, Bihar [Pan:Cdfps1206N] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…..…………………………..Respondent Ward-6(2), Patna, Bihar Appearances By: N O N E, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashok Kumar, Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: December 02, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: December 10, 2024 O R D E R

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 2(47)(v)Section 53A

90,84,600/- and the total value of share owned by the appellant was Rs.1,89,13,162/-. As a bundle of ownership rights over assessee’s share of land was relinquished by the appellant in terms of the land development agreement, the provision of section 53A of the Transfer of Property Ac, 1882 and the capital gains

AMRENDRA PRATAP SINGH,VARANASI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 3(1), GAYA

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

ITA 101/PAT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Patna07 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 250Section 251Section 69A

capital gain under the Act. 11. For that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) as well as the ld. assessing officer has erred in holding that the interest aggregating to Rs.1,77,580, being Rs.99,913 credited in ICICI Bank and Rs.77,667 credited in Canara Bank, during the Previous Year 2011-12 corresponding to the Assessment Year

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

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

90,377/- made by the A.O. is therefore deleted.” 6. Rival contentions were heard and the details were examined. The Ld. AR stated that the case is not covered under the exceptional clauses as it is not an organized tax evasion of capital gains but is a business transaction. The counter party are the same

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)

90,000/- Ajay Kumar 04-06-2008 PNB-9926 817898 2,80,000/- Ajay Kumar 16-06-2008 PNB-9926 821347 3,50,000/- Ajay Kumar 18-02-2009 PNB-9926 797751 1,00,000/- Ajay Kumar 18-02-2009 PNB-9926 797754 2,00,000/- Ajay Kumar 14-03-2009 PNB-9926 797758 40,000/- Anirudh Yadav