INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (AHMEDABAD BENCH)
Makarand V. Mahaodekar, AM, Suchitra R. Kamble, JM
JAYSHREEBEN JAYANTIBHAI PALSANA LIMBADIYA BOTAD GUJARAT – Appellant
Versus
ITO WARD 1(9) BHAVANAGAR BHAVNAGAR – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts of income declaration and rebate claims. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments for allowing rebate against stcg tax. (Para 4) |
आदेश/ORDER
PER MAKARAND V.MAHADEOKAR, AM:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 15.04.2025 passed by the Office of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 2, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] under section 250 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) in appeal arising out of the intimation issued under section 143(1) by the CPC, Bengaluru on 28.02.2025, for the assessment year 2024–25.
2. Facts of the Case
2.1 The assessee, an individual resident of India, had originally filed her return of income under section 139(1) of the Act on 30.07.2024, declaring total income of Rs.4,27,635/-, comprising the following:
- Short-term capital gains u/s 111A: Rs.3,79,559/-
- Long-term capital gains u/s 112A: Rs.38,840/-
- Income from other sources: Rs.9,236/-
2.2 The return was subsequently revised on 31.12.2024 within the time allowed under section 139(5), to correct certain omissions in the capital gain schedule. In the revised return, the assessee exercised the option under section 115BAC(1A), i.e.,
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.