“Section 10(38)”

Section References (mined)Section 10Section 10(38)1,694 judgments

RAMESHKUMAR KARSANBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 2(3)(5), SURAT

Accordingly the estimated addition made of Rs.35,166/-[0.5% of 70,33,182/-] by the AC invoking provision of section 69C of the I.T Act stand deleted. Thus this ground is allowed

ITA 669/SRT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Apr 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 10(38)Section 115Section 115BSection 250Section 68Section 69C

Capital Gain of Rs.70,33,182/- on sale of 15,000 equity shares of Sunrise Asian Ltd. (SUNASIAN), which was claimed exempt under section 10(38) of the Act. Before the Assessing Officer, the assessee explained that the shares were originally acquired in FY 2011-12 for Rs.3 ... DEPARTMENT Swati Bajaj T.S. SIVAGNANAM AND HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, JJ. IA NO. GA/2/2022 AND OTHERST ITAT/6/2022 & OTHRS JUNE 14 2022 Section 68, read with section 10(38), of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Cash credit (Share dealings) Assessment year 2014-15 Whether if there is information and data available of unreasonable

BHAWNA KAPOOR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-62(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 632/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarsmt. Bhawna Kapoor Vs. Acit Prop M/S Manish Circle 62(1) Handicraft 1196, Main Delhi Bazar, Paharganj, New Delhi 110055 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Adxpk 3853 F Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Ramesh Chander, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 68Section 69A

that the Respondent had entered into an agreement to convert un- accounted money by claiming fictitious LTCG, which is exempt under Section 10(38), in a pre- planned manner to evade taxes. The AO extensively relied upon the search and survey operations conducted by the Investigation Wing of the Income

GYAN PRAKASH GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD-10(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6271/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarlate Gyan Prakash Gupta Vs. Ito Through Legal Heir Raj Ward 10(4) Kumari Gupta New Delhi Plot No.6 & 7, Defence Enclave, Laxmi Nagar, East Delhi 110092 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Adupg 2697 N Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Ajit Gandhi, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

accrued to the assessee on transfer of long term 'capital asset' was not includible in total income of the assessee in view of section 10(38) of the Act. 10. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate the evidence tendered by the appellant to support ... total P a g e | 5 Gyan Prakash Gupta (AY 2015-16) consideration on sale of shares as his income exempt under section 10(38) of the Act, the addition amounts to double taxation of the same income. 16. That the addition was made grossly indulging in surmises without bringing

VIJAY KOTHARI,INDORE vs. DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE

ITA 267/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 250

{ "clean_text": "आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, इंदौर न्यायपीठ, इंदौर\nIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nINDORE BENCH, INDORE\nBEFORE SHRI B.M

PRAVEEN GARG HUF,ROURKELA vs. ITO, WARD 1, ROURKELA, ROURKELA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 823/CTK/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarita No.822&823/Ctk/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Praveen Garg Huf Ito, Ward-1, Rourkela Gurudrawara Road, Rourkela, Vs Odisha-769001. (Pan: Aahhp0557Q) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Abhijeet Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 271

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND

PRAVEEN GARG HUF,ROURKELA vs. ITO, WARD 1, ROURKELA, ROURKELA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 822/CTK/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Abhijeet Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 271

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND

SMT. SANTOSH BAMALWA,DIBRUGARH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

ITA 348/GTY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rajesh Kumarsmt. Santosh Bamalwa Acit, Circle-1 C/O A.K. Varma, Ground Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Mahalaya Road, Dibrugarh- Milan Nagar, Dibrugarh-786003, 786001, Assam Assam (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aedpb9900P Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing: 09/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 13/03/2026 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani, Addl

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

Twenty First Century (India) Ltd. at a consideration of ₹ 1,54,08,134/- and claimed long term capital gain as exempt under Section 10(38) of the Act. The said shares were purchased by the assessee for ₹ 3,06,000/-. The Assessing Officer on the basis of information furnished

ANIKET SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

ITA 939/CHANDI/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar & Ms. Deepali Aggarwal, C.A'sFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 250(6)Section 68Section 69C

long-term capital gain (LTCG) of Rs.7,91,34,944/- arising from the\nsale of these shares during the year as exempt under section 10(38) of the\nAct. Similarly, the appellant sold shares of “Shantanu Sheorey Aquakult\"\nbetween 27.10.2016 and 16.03.2017, which had been purchased during the\nfinancial year ... which is placed on record,\nwherein it was emphasized that the LTCG earned by the Assessee was fully\ncompliant with the provisions of section 10(38) of the Act and was duly liable\nto be treated as exempt income. Further the Assessee has also emphasized in\nhis submission before

ANIKET SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the above appeals are allowed

ITA 1146/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 939/Chd/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Shri Aniket Singal बनाम The DCIT 4, Amritashergil Marg, New Delhi- 110003 Central Circle-1 Chandigarh स्थायी लेखा सं./ PAN NO: CZCPS6126E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1145/Chd/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Smt. Aarti Singal बनाम The DCIT 53, Jor Bagh, New Delhi-110003 Central Circle-1 Chandigarh स

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar & Ms. Deepali Aggarwal, C.A’sFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 250(6)Section 68Section 69C

term capital gain (LTCG) of Rs. 7,91,34,944/- arising from the sale of these shares during the year as exempt under section 10(38) of the Act. Similarly, the appellant sold shares of “Shantanu Sheorey Aquakult” between 27.10.2016 and 16.03.2017, which had been purchased during the financial year ... appear for which it was ready to deposit the diet money. (vi) It was also emphasized that all the conditions laid down in section 10(38) of the Act viz. period of holding, securities being listed, sale being subject to STT were fulfilled and accordingly the said LTCG was rightly

AARTI SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the above appeals are allowed

ITA 1145/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 939/Chd/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Shri Aniket Singal बनाम The DCIT Central Circle-1 Chandigarh 4, Amritashergil Marg, New Delhi- 110003 स्थायी लेखा सं./ PAN NO: CZCPS6126E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1145/Chd/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Smt. Aarti Singal बनाम The DCIT Central Circle-1 Chandigarh 53, Jor Bagh, New Delhi-110003 स

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar & Ms. Deepali Aggarwal, C.A’sFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 250(6)Section 68Section 69C

PUNITA KALPESH PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-5(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 2054/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 10(34)Section 10(35)Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 54FSection 94(7)

NFAC) erred in law and on facts confirming disallowance by AO without taking into consideration provisions of Section 115BBDA and of Section 10(38) of the Act as applicable to relevant assessment. 4. Ld. CIT (A) (NFAC) erred in law and on facts confirming finding of AO based on misunderstanding

SARIT GUPTA (HUF),NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 43(6), NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6662/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: the NFAC who vide order dated 28-08-2025 dismissed the appeal. Being, aggrieved the order of the Ld. NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 149(1)Section 3

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH “B”NEWDELHI BEFORESHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHIR HUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

VANEET AGGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-14(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2607/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 69ASection 69C

following additions made by the\nAssessing Officer:\n\ni. Rs.44,60,283/- being the amount of long term capital gains claimed\nexempt under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act')\ninvoking section 69A of the Act;\n\nii. Rs.1,42,208/- on account of alleged commission ... nbank statement and, furthermore no incriminating materials were found\nduring survey conducted in premises of assessee, AO could not deny claim\nunder section 10(38) merely by relying on statements of accommodation\nentry providers which were recorded much before date of survey.\nPr. CIT v. Anupama Mohapatra (2024) 161 taxmann.com

DILIPKUMAR SOHANLAL MAHESHWARI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1662/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr. D.R

Section 10(35)Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 142Section 143Section 143(2)Section 68

Contract Notes, Demat Accounts, STT Paid Certificates, Date of Purchase and Sale, Demat Account Entries, Bank Statements for receipt and payment, Provisions of Section 10(38) of the Act. No adverse observations are made against the evidences placed on record. Thus order suffers from an incurable defect void and needs

CHHAYA KETAN MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 33(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 6543/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

For Appellant: \nShri Nishit Gandhi, AdvFor Respondent: \nShri Virabhadra Mahajan (Sr. DR)

Section 10(38)Section 14Section 143(3)

under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This addition was made by denying the claim for exemption under Section 10(38) on the sale of SRK Industries Ltd shares.", "held": "The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO under Section 68 was unsustainable as the assessee ... evidence. The Tribunal also noted that similar cases involving SRK Industries Ltd. shares had been decided in favor of the assessees.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "10(38)", "68", "143(3)", "14" ], "issues": "Whether the long-term capital gains on the sale of SRK Industries Ltd shares are eligible for exemption under

ELARA INDIA OPPORTUNITIES FUND LIMITED,MAURITIUS vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF THE INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) - 2(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 5859/MUM/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2019-2020

cannot be a sole criterion for reaching to the\nconclusion that the bogus long-term capital gain was\ngenerated which is exempted under section 10(38) of the\nAct. Such observation during the assessment\nproceedings provides reasons to investigate the matter\nin detail and the same cannot take the place

JAYESH KANUNGO HUF,KHETWADI, MUMBAI vs. ITO-19(2)(1), PAREL, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6855/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Bijayananda Prusethjayesh Kanungo Huf Ito -19(2)(1), Mumbai 203, Rajgiri Apartment, A Wing, Vs. Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, 13Thkhetwadi Back Road, Mumbai Parel Mumbai 400012 400004 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabhj8492E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Rajkumar Singh a/w. Ms. Asifa KhanFor Respondent: Shri. Nakul Agrawal Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69C

that, the assessee filed the return dated 31.07.2014 declaring total income of Rs. 3,56,630/-. The assessee claimed the exemption under section 10(38) of the Act of Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) related to sale of share amount of Rs. 1,90,09,335/-. The Learned Assessing Officer ... legal ground relating to jurisdiction, the grounds raised by the assessee on merits regarding addition under section 68, denial of exemption under section 10(38), and addition under section 69C become academic and therefore are not adjudicated. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

JAYSHREE HARESH SHAH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 19(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 4206/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)

consideration received on sale of shares represented the\nassessee's own unaccounted funds. We find that the issue relating to exemption\nunder section 10(38) of the Act in respect of shares of SAL. has been considered\nby various Coordinate Benches and upheld by higher judicial forums in favour ... nprecedents cited hereinabove, we hold that the addition made by the Ld. AO by\ntreating the LTCG as bogus and denying exemption under section 10(38) of the\nAct is unsustainable in law. Accordingly, the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is\nset aside

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 2403/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra (CIT DR)

Section 10(38)Section 111ASection 112Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, erred in\nconfirming the action of the learned AO of denying exemption under section 10(38) of the Act\nclaimed by the Appellant with respect to long-term capital gains amounting to Rs 29,20,85,189\narising on sale ... result, Ground No.1 of the assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical\npurpose.\n9. Ground No. 2: The assessee has claimed exemption under section 10(38) of\nthe Act in respect of Long-Term Capital Gain (LTCG) amounting to\nRs.29,20,85,189/- arising from the sale of equity shares

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue’s bearing ITA No

ITA 2398/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra (CIT DR)

Section 10(38)Section 111ASection 112Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234DSection 250

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, erred in confirming the action of the learned AO of denying exemption under section 10(38) of the Act claimed by the Appellant with respect to long-term capital gains amounting to Rs 29,20,85,189 arising on sale ... result, Ground No.1 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose. 9. Ground No. 2: The assessee has claimed exemption under section 10(38) of the Act in respect of Long-Term Capital Gain (LTCG) amounting to Rs.29,20,85,189/- arising from the sale of equity shares

Showing 1–20 of 1,694 · Page 1 of 85

...