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.

9 results for “capital gains”+ Section 234Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai454Delhi370Bangalore144Jaipur79Ahmedabad59Chennai35Hyderabad32Kolkata30Nagpur28Pune24Indore20Visakhapatnam13Amritsar11Rajkot11Surat9Patna9Chandigarh8Jodhpur7Agra5Ranchi5Jabalpur4Cuttack2Lucknow2Dehradun1Allahabad1Cochin1Raipur1

Key Topics

Section 26329Section 143(3)11Section 54B9Section 54F7Section 1486Addition to Income6Section 234B5Section 1474Section 2504Penalty

KIRIT BABUBHAI JHAVERI,SURAT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes, subject to the of cost of Rs

ITA 52/SRT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.52/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 (Hybrid Hearing) Kirit Babubhai Jhaveri, Vs. Acit, 22, Zaveri Bungalow, Opp – Circle – 2(2), Meghna Park, City Light Road, Surat Surat – 395007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabpz4942P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 54Section 54B

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act’) dated 13.11.2023 by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), [in short, “the CIT(A)”] for the assessment year (AY) 2015-16, which in turn arises out of assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (in short, ‘AO’) u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 21.12.2017. 2. Grounds

4
Deduction4
Long Term Capital Gains3

DHANSUKHLAL RAMANBHAI MALI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD2(3)(1), SURAT

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

ITA 39/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Physical Court) Dhansukhlal Ramanbhai Mali, I.T.O., 10, Mali Faliya, Mota Varachha, Ward-2(3)(1), Vs. Surat. Surat. Pan: Aqppm 7151 B Appellant Respondednt

Section 131Section 144ASection 234ASection 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54ESection 54F

Capital Gain received on sale of land at Mota Varachha, Surat though a residential house was constructed by utilizing sale consideration received on sale of land and thereby fulfilling all the relevant conditions as prescribed under Section 54F of the Act. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the exemption U/s 54F be given to the appellant

SHUSHILABEN PRATAPBHAI THAKOR,NA vs. ARIVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 5, NAVSARI

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 259/SRT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat07 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.259/Ahd/2023 (A.Y. 2012-13) (Hearing In Physical Court) Shushilaben Pratapbhai Thakor Income Tax Officer, 6, Shiv Jal, Shailesh Park Ward-5, Navsari, Room Vs Society, Gandevi Road, Navsari- No.204, 2Nd Floor, Aayakar 396445 Bhawan, Near Char Pool, Pan : Adept 7623 H Police Choki, Navsari- 396445 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 234DSection 249(2)Section 254(1)Section 54B

section 249(2): (1) The learned CIT(A) seriously erred in dismissing the appeal without verifying the offline office records that appeal was filed in time. (2) With the Government making filing of appeal before the CIT(A) online, the appellant was obliged to file the appeal online again which unfortunately learned CIT(A) accepted as a date of filing

SANJAYKUMAR ARVINDBHAI RUPARELIYA L/H ARVINDBHAI BALUBHAI RUPARELIYA,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 3(1)(2), SURAT

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

ITA 1305/SRT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: MS SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE (Judicial Member), SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 54B

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’), dated 17.10.2024 by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [in short ‘CIT(A)’] for the Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16, which in turn arises from the assessment order passed by Assessing Officer (in short

JIGNESH RAJKUMAR MEHTA,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), SURAT

In the result, assessee`s appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 105/SRT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.105/Srt/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Virtual Hearing) Jignesh Rajkumar Mehta, Vs. The Dcit, Circle-2(1)(1), 48, Sankalp Society, Ghod Dod Road, Surat. Bhatar, Surat – 395007. (Assessee) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adbpm2561Q Assessee By Shri Umesh Dalal, Ar Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2023

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 234BSection 271A

section 115BBE. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.3507890/- without rejection book result u/s 145. Jignesh Rajkuamr Mehta 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) has erred in confirming penalty of Rs.10000/- when

KETAN NATVARLAL SHAH,VAPI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 894/SRT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year:2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 234BSection 274

capital gain. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has not offered adequate opportunities to hear the case and passed ex-parte order and hence the case may please be set aside and restored back

HOTEL ROYAL GARDEN,,DAMAN AND DIU (UT) vs. THE PCIT, VALSAD, VALSAD

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is dismissed

ITA 103/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.103/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Hotel Royal Garden, Vs. The Pcit, Valsad. Main Road, Dabhel, Nani Daman – 396210, Daman & Diu (Ut). "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefh2587H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Darshit J. Naik, Ca With Jayraj M. Naik, Ca Respondent By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 05/01/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21/03/2023

Section 143(3)Section 263

234B, 234C & 234D as applicable. Issued DN/Challan accordingly.” 24. From the assessment order, it is abundantly clear that Assessing Officer has not discussed the issue raised by the Ld. PCIT, therefore we note that it is a case of complete non-enquiry ( no enquiry) on the part of the Assessing Officer. The assessing officer blindly accepted only the income shown

MR. RAMANLAL RAGHABHI PATEL ,DAMAN vs. THE PCIT, VALSAD, VALSAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 105/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.105/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Ramanlal Raghabhai Patel, Vs. The Pcit, Valsad. Near Check Post, Dabhel, Daman – 396210, Daman & Diu (Ut). (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Accpp2952J

Section 143(3)Section 263

234B, 234C & 234D as applicable. Issued DN/Challan accordingly.” Ramanlal Raghabhai Patel 11. From the above assessment order, it is vivid that assessing officer has not examined the issue raised by ld PCIT (Excess stock of liquor), hence, assessing officer has neither applied his mind nor did any enquiry, therefore order passed by the assessing officer is erroneous and prejudicial

JITENDRA MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. ITO-WARD 1(1)(3), SURAT, SURAT

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

ITA 20/SRT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.20/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Jitendra Mehta, Vs. Ito, Office No.M-24, Mezn Floor, Ward – 1(1)(3), 10/21, Flox Chamber, Tata Road Surat No. 1, Opera House, Mumbai – 400004, Maharashtra "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ambpm9018P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Himanshu Gandhi, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09/06/2025

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 270ASection 50CSection 55A

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’), dated 13.11.2024, by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘CIT(A)’] for the Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case