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 “section 68”+ Long Term Capital Gainsclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,161Delhi1,484Bangalore527Ahmedabad446Kolkata445Jaipur413Chennai379Hyderabad199Chandigarh175Indore150Pune142Karnataka132Cochin97Surat87Calcutta80Nagpur71Raipur61Lucknow55Rajkot48Guwahati48Cuttack47Visakhapatnam39Panaji31Amritsar20Jodhpur19SC16Ranchi14Agra14Telangana13Patna13Rajasthan7Allahabad7Jabalpur5Varanasi4Dehradun3Andhra Pradesh1Orissa1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 14810Section 143(3)10Section 1474Section 684Section 144r2Section 1442Section 143(2)2Section 42Long Term Capital Gains2Addition to Income

SUJIT KUMAR AGRAWAL (HUF),VARANASI vs. ACIT, CC, VARANASI

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

ITA 28/VNS/2021[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi07 Jul 2022AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharay: 2014-15 Sujit Kumar Agrawal (Huf) V Assistant Commissioner Of 72, Jawahar Nagar Extension Bhelupur, . Income Tax, Central Circle, Varanasi-221005, Uttar Pradesh Varanasi Pan-Aaohs5397C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh. Asim Zafar, Adv Respondent By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 07.07.2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Sh. Asim Zafar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 253(3)Section 4Section 68

long term capital gain” (disclosed by the appellant) as bogus, under section 68. 5. Because the order appealed against is contrary

2
Natural Justice2

AJAY KUMAR AGRAWAL (HUF),VARANASI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, VARANASI

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

ITA 34/VNS/2021[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi07 Jul 2022AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharay: 2014-15 Ajay Kumar Agrawal (Huf), V Assistant Commissioner Of 72, Jawahar Nagar Extension Bhelupur, . Income Tax, Central Circle, Varanasi-221005, Uttar Pradesh, India Varanasi Pan-Aagha9912D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh. Asim Zafar, Adv Respondent By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 07.07.2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Sh. Asim Zafar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 4Section 44ASection 68

long term capital gain” (disclosed by the appellant) as bogus, under section 68. 5. Because the order appealed against is contrary

MOUSAMI CHOUDHURY,VARANASI vs. DY. CIT, RANGE - 02,, VARANASI

In the result , the appeal filed the assessee in ITA No

ITA 214/VNS/2019[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi28 Dec 2022AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Sh.ArvindShukla, Adv. & Sh. AsimZafar, AdvFor Respondent: ShriA.K. Singh, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144rSection 147Section 148

long passage of time as time is a great healer of wound. Every parent is a well wisher of their daughters and despite differences could not see that their married daughter is prejudiced and put to loss by their action of not handing over the relevant correspondences/ couriers/speed posts etc to her. Reference is drawn to provisions of Section

MOUSAMI CHOUDHURY,VARANASI vs. DY. CIT, RANGE - 2, VARANASI

In the result , the appeal filed the assessee in ITA No

ITA 213/VNS/2019[201-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi28 Dec 2022

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Sh.ArvindShukla, Adv. & Sh. AsimZafar, AdvFor Respondent: ShriA.K. Singh, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144rSection 147Section 148

long passage of time as time is a great healer of wound. Every parent is a well wisher of their daughters and despite differences could not see that their married daughter is prejudiced and put to loss by their action of not handing over the relevant correspondences/ couriers/speed posts etc to her. Reference is drawn to provisions of Section