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.

9 results for “capital gains”+ Section 145clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai724Delhi542Bangalore232Ahmedabad199Jaipur194Chennai171Kolkata154Karnataka121Hyderabad119Chandigarh108Cochin85Agra73Indore56Calcutta54Pune49Raipur48Cuttack41Surat37Nagpur32Lucknow26Visakhapatnam20Amritsar14Guwahati13SC12Ranchi12Jodhpur12Patna9Rajkot9Telangana6Panaji6Allahabad5Jabalpur4Rajasthan3Dehradun2Andhra Pradesh1Punjab & Haryana1Varanasi1

Key Topics

Addition to Income9Section 143(3)7Section 143(2)4Section 50C3Section 10(37)3Section 142(1)3Exemption3Section 562Section 43D2Section 80H

SHRI JAYANTILAL P. SATIKUNVER,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

ITA 469/RJT/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot08 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.469/Rjt/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2010-11)

For Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Jain, CIT. D.R
Section 143(3)

gain computed by the learned CIT in the proceedings under section 263 of the Act was subject to tax year in which such converted stock in trade is sold. It was submitted by the learned AR that the provisions of section 45(2) requires to tax the income arising on the conversion of capital asset as stock in trade

KANTABEN VAJUBHAI PAGHADAL,RAJKOT, GUJARAT vs. ITO WD 1(2)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

2
Limitation/Time-bar2
Condonation of Delay2
ITA 552/RJT/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed
ITAT Rajkot
28 Nov 2025
AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.552/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Hybrid Hearing) Kantaben Vajubhai Paghadal Vs. It-Office, New Aayakar At- Charan Samadhiyala, Bhawan, Jetpur – 360370(Gujarat) Rajkot - 360370 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Cxmpp2962D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sagar Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 10(37)Section 143(3)Section 145BSection 250Section 56

capital gains tax under section 45 of the I.T. Act, the interest received under section 28 of the Act of 1894 being an accretion to the value, would form part of the compensation and would be exigible to tax under section 45(5) of the I.T. Act, whereas the interest received under section 34 of the Act of 1894 would

THE DEPUTY COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,, JUNAGADH vs. SMT. GRACY KUTHUKMAL THOMAS,, VERAVAL

In the result, appeals of the Revenue and assessee, both are dismissed

ITA 37/RJT/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot01 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri M.J. Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Jitendra Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 80H

capital in nature and not for the purpose of business, however, if it is correctly recorded in books of account, the books of account cannot be rejected on the ground of its non-allow ability under I.T. Act. The DEPB scheme was started somewhere in Assessment Year 1998-99. Therefore, it is possible that in early days of this scheme

SMT. GRACY KUTHUMKAL THOMAS,,VERAVAL vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JUNAGADH RANGE-1,, JUNAGADH

In the result, appeals of the Revenue and assessee, both are dismissed

ITA 24/RJT/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot01 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri M.J. Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Jitendra Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 80H

capital in nature and not for the purpose of business, however, if it is correctly recorded in books of account, the books of account cannot be rejected on the ground of its non-allow ability under I.T. Act. The DEPB scheme was started somewhere in Assessment Year 1998-99. Therefore, it is possible that in early days of this scheme

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S SAURASHTRA GRAMIN BANK,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

ITA 376/RJT/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot25 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royअपील सं./Ita No.376/Rjt/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 D.C.I.T., M/S. Saurashtra Gramin Bank, Circle-3(1), Vs. Gopalnaga, Opp. Andh Mahila Rajkot. Vikas Gruh, Rajkot.

For Appellant: Ms A.D. Vyas, A.RFor Respondent: Shri
Section 43D

145 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 has not role to play. 8.8 In view of the above, though the income of the assessee has accrued under the mercantile system of accounting but the same cannot be charged to tax for the reason that the RBI being regulatory authority prohibits to recognize such income in the books of accounts. Hence

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. GANDHI REALITY (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 110/RJT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot25 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm

For Appellant: Shri R. K. Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Verma, Ld. CIT. (DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 230

145 taxmann.com 151] is not applicable to the facts of the assessee`s case since the said decision is pertaining to reconstitution of Partnership Firm and revaluation of assets by the Partnership Firm whereas in the present case, Goodwill is recorded pursuant to scheme approved by NCLT. The said decision is pertaining Gandhi Reality(I) Pvt. Ltd to capital gain

DILIP KANTILAL KUBAVAT,PORBANDAR vs. ITO WD 2(3), PORBANDAR, PORBANDAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 522/RJT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot14 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.522/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year :2016-17 Dilip Kantilal Kubavat Ito बनाम/ Prop. Vijay Dairy Farm, Ward 2 (3), Vs Near Ramdhun S V P Road, Porbandar 360575 Porbandar - 360575 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Azfpk8009B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sagar Shah, Ld. Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Ld. Sr-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 09/09/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14 /10/2025 आदेश/Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Dated 21.03.2025, Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Here-In-After Referred To As “The Act”) Relevant To The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. In This Appeal, The Assessee Has Raised Multiple Grounds Of Appeal. However, The Solitary Grievance Of The Assessee Is That The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Not To Consider The Basic Fact That The Assessee Has Gifted The Property To His Sister In Law (Younger Brother'S Wife) That Is, To A Relative For A Consideration Dilip Kantilal Kubavat

For Appellant: Shri Sagar Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Ld. Sr-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C

capital gain, as the assessee was not properly advised by his Advocate and because of the mistake of the Advocate, the assessee has offered tax on such transaction, which should be refunded to the assessee. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, in order to prove that this sale deed was executed by the assessee in the favour of brother

DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1), RAJKOT vs. M/S AJANTA MFG. LTD.,, MORBI

In the result this issue is decided against the revenue and accordingly ground no

ITA 102/RJT/2021[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot31 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal(1) I.T.A. No.102/Rjt/2021 (2) I.T.A. No.138/Rjt/2021 (Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17) (1) Dcit, M/S. Ajanta Manufacturing Ltd. Circle-1(1), Orpat Industrial Estate, Rajkot Rajkot Morbi Highway, Morbi-363641 Vs. (2) Acit M/S. Ajanta Manufacturing Pvt. Circle1(1), Ltd., Rajkot Orpat Industrial Estate, Rajkot Morbi Highway, Morbi-363641 [Pan No.Aaeca6115B] (Appellant) (Respondent) .. Appellant By : Shri Vimal Desai, A.R. Respondent By: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Citdr Date Of Hearing 25.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.05.2023

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CITDR
Section 115J

section 115JB of the Act. In the case of Krishi Rasayan Exports (P.) Ltd. 145 taxmann.com 191 (Calcutta), the Kolkata High Court held that Interest subsidy and excise refund should be treated as capital receipt for purpose of computation of book profit. 8. We further observe that in the instant facts, the ITAT, Rajkot in assessee’s own case

DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1), RAJKOT vs. M/S AJANTA MFG. LTD.,, MORBI

In the result this issue is decided against the revenue and accordingly ground no

ITA 138/RJT/2021[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot31 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal(1) I.T.A. No.102/Rjt/2021 (2) I.T.A. No.138/Rjt/2021 (Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17) (1) Dcit, M/S. Ajanta Manufacturing Ltd. Circle-1(1), Orpat Industrial Estate, Rajkot Rajkot Morbi Highway, Morbi-363641 Vs. (2) Acit M/S. Ajanta Manufacturing Pvt. Circle1(1), Ltd., Rajkot Orpat Industrial Estate, Rajkot Morbi Highway, Morbi-363641 [Pan No.Aaeca6115B] (Appellant) (Respondent) .. Appellant By : Shri Vimal Desai, A.R. Respondent By: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Citdr Date Of Hearing 25.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.05.2023

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CITDR
Section 115J

section 115JB of the Act. In the case of Krishi Rasayan Exports (P.) Ltd. 145 taxmann.com 191 (Calcutta), the Kolkata High Court held that Interest subsidy and excise refund should be treated as capital receipt for purpose of computation of book profit. 8. We further observe that in the instant facts, the ITAT, Rajkot in assessee’s own case