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.

10 results for “capital gains”+ Section 50C(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai672Delhi391Ahmedabad198Chennai196Jaipur195Hyderabad189Kolkata142Pune131Bangalore106Indore103Surat101Visakhapatnam57Nagpur50Rajkot41Agra33Chandigarh29Lucknow28Raipur24Dehradun17Patna16Jodhpur16Jabalpur15Amritsar13Ranchi10Cochin9Karnataka8Allahabad6Cuttack5Panaji3Varanasi3Calcutta2Telangana2Guwahati2SC1

Key Topics

Section 50C23Section 5413Section 489Section 69B7Addition to Income7Section 143(3)6Section 50C(1)6Capital Gains6Section 50C(2)4Section 45

NAMITA PANDEY,PALAMAU vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-3,, RANCHI

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 278/RAN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi09 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm] I.T.A No. 318/Ran/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Dilip Kumar –Vs- Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi [Pan: Adlpk 4085 H] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Hari Lal Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Chandan Das, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 45Section 48Section 50CSection 50C(1)Section 54

1), applicable in the instant case. In short, in a case of transfer of a capital asset, being land or building or both, section 48 is to be read along with section 50C for computing the capital gains

4
Short Term Capital Gains4
Deduction3

DILIP KUMAR,RANCHI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 318/RAN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi09 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm] I.T.A No. 318/Ran/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Dilip Kumar –Vs- Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi [Pan: Adlpk 4085 H] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Hari Lal Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Chandan Das, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 45Section 48Section 50CSection 50C(1)Section 54

1), applicable in the instant case. In short, in a case of transfer of a capital asset, being land or building or both, section 48 is to be read along with section 50C for computing the capital gains

SRI NALIN RANJAN,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ITO WD-1(3), JSR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 331/RAN/2017[14-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi29 Aug 2019

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Devesh Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Mondal, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 50C

1 | 7 Ass essment Year : 2014 -15 3. For that the CIT(A) erred in upholding the cost of construction at Rs.750/- per sq.ft determined arbitrarily by the AO and also by upholding the method of computing capital gain as employed by the AO notwithstanding that the question of the value of land is wholly irrelevant, as the same

DCIT CIRCLE-1, RANCHI vs. SHRI ANUP CHAWLA, RANCHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 8/RAN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi22 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)

For Appellant: None appearedFor Respondent: Shri Chandan Das, JCIT/ld.DR
Section 143(3)Section 48Section 50CSection 56(2)(vii)Section 69B

50C is a deeming provision where under the stamp duty rate is treated as full value of consideration for the purpose of computing capital gain under section 48. It is applicable in the case of a seller of property and therefore cannot be invoked in case of purchaser of property for the purpose of section 69B. 5.3 Section 69B reads

SRI AJAY KUMAR AGARWAL,RANCHI vs. ITO,WARD-1(1), RANCHI

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

ITA 244/RAN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi05 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.244/Ran/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Chandan Das, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 50C

gain of Rs. 43,24,000/- towards purchase a piece of land. 10. At the outset itself, the ld. DR for the revenue pointed out that so far ground no.3 and 4 raised by the assessee is concerned, it is not clear whether the land was holding by the assessee as ‘stock-in-trade’ or as capital assets. Without being

SRI AJAY KUMAR ,HAZARIBAGH vs. ITO WARD-1(1), HAZARIBAGH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA NO

ITA 207/RAN/2017[09-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi08 Jul 2020

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.243/Ran/2016 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.207/Ran/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri M. K. Choudhry, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Inderjeet Singh, CIT (DR)
Section 147Section 50C

Section 50C of the Act is not applicable to him, as the purchase of land was for the purpose of sale of land after developing the said land and therefore the assessee held the land as a business stock. However, the Assessing Officer did not accept the contention of the assessee and computed short term capital gain

SHRI AJAY KUMARS/O SHRI KISAN BHAGWAT,HAZARIBAGH vs. ITO WARD-2(5), HAZARIBAGH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA NO

ITA 243/RAN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi08 Jul 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.243/Ran/2016 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.207/Ran/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri M. K. Choudhry, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Inderjeet Singh, CIT (DR)
Section 147Section 50C

Section 50C of the Act is not applicable to him, as the purchase of land was for the purpose of sale of land after developing the said land and therefore the assessee held the land as a business stock. However, the Assessing Officer did not accept the contention of the assessee and computed short term capital gain

BANESWAR TUDU,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ITO,WARD-1(3), JAMSHEDPUR

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 381/RAN/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi03 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godarai.T.A No.381/Ran/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Baneswar Tudu Vs. Ito, Wd-1(3), Br C/O Ca Nawal Kishore Mahato, Flat No.401, 4Th Floor, K C Apartment, 137, Ambagan Road, Sakchi, Jamshedpur, Pin-831001. Pan/Gir No. : Amvpt1904F (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 50C(2)

gains amounting to Rs.3.80 crores in assessee’s hands. There is no dispute that the actual sale price of the capital asset(s) sold is Rs.2,06,64,000/- as against stamp price of Rs.3,09,09,600/-; respectively. I do not find any reference u/s 50C(2) of the Act to have been made either by the Assessing Officer

MOHAN PRASAD GUPTA,RANCHI vs. ITO WARD-2(1), RANCHI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 343/RAN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi14 Jul 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Assessment Year:2014-15 बनाम Mohan Prasad Gupta Ito, Ward-2(1), Ranchi / C/O D.P. Paul(Fca), 718/1, V/S. Nabin Mitra Road, Near Samsung Plaza, Burdwan Compound, Lalpur, Ranchi- 834001. Pan No.Acbpg4107H अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent ..

Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 50C(2)

capital gains addition of Rs.53,34,419/-; during the course of assessment as upheld in the CIT(A)’s order. Learned departmental representative fails to rebut the clinching fact that neither Mohan Prasad Gupta Page 2 of the lower authorities had made section 50C(2) statutory reference to the DVO before adopting the impugned fair market value. Hon’ble Calcutta

DILIP KUMAR,DORANDA RANCHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, RANCHI

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 233/RAN/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi17 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhurydilip Kumar, D.C.I.T., 4B, Dr. K.D. Choudhury Apartment, Circle-1, Vs. South Office Para, Doranda, Ranchi. Ranchi-834002 (Jharkhand) Pan No. Adlpk 4085 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 154Section 50Section 50C(2)Section 54

50C(2) whilst adding the impugned capital gains. 5. These assessee's appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms." 3. It is the contention of learned counsel for the assessee that in the consequent assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer dated 18/12/2019, the Assessing Officer has not followed the direction of the Tribunal and has not examined