Search: capital gains | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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 272A(1)(d)clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai27 Mumbai10 Ahmedabad9 Hyderabad5 Jaipur5 Delhi5 Chandigarh4 Surat3 Bangalore3 Agra3 Kolkata1 Pune1 Lucknow1

Key Topics

Section 272A(1)(d)16 Section 148A13 Section 271A12 Section 14710 Section 142(1)8 Penalty8 Addition to Income8 Natural Justice8 Section 1487 Reassessment

MANISHKUMAR RAMLAKHAN AGRAWAL,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OOFICER, WARD 6(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 920/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajenkumar M Vasavda, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 271A(1)(d)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 273B

7

Long Term Capital Gains6

Gains of ₹6,01,979/-. Subsequently, a Search and Seizure operation under section 132 of the Act was conducted in the case of the Kushal Group of Ahmedabad on 05.02.2019. During the investigation, it was found that the said Group was involved in price rigging and issuing bogus accommodation entries, including fabricated long-term and short-term capital gains/losses. Based

ALISHA PACKAGING INDUSTRIES,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1170/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

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

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 271ASection 272A(1)(d)

272A(1)(d) of Rs.30,000/- each for the Asst. Years 2018-19 and 2019-20. 3. Aggrieved against the above orders, the assessee filed appeals before Ld. CIT(A) with condonation delay for the quantum appeals which was condoned by Ld. CIT(A). As the assessee failed to respond to the hearing notices dated

ALISHA PACKAGING INDUSTRIES,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1171/AHD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 271ASection 272A(1)(d)

272A(1)(d) of Rs.30,000/- each for the Asst. Years 2018-19 and 2019-20. 3. Aggrieved against the above orders, the assessee filed appeals before Ld. CIT(A) with condonation delay for the quantum appeals which was condoned by Ld. CIT(A). As the assessee failed to respond to the hearing notices dated

ALISHA PACKAGING INDUSTRIES,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1183/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

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

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 271ASection 272A(1)(d)

272A(1)(d) of Rs.30,000/- each for the Asst. Years 2018-19 and 2019-20. 3. Aggrieved against the above orders, the assessee filed appeals before Ld. CIT(A) with condonation delay for the quantum appeals which was condoned by Ld. CIT(A). As the assessee failed to respond to the hearing notices dated

ALISHA PACKAGING INDUSTRIES,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1185/AHD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

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

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 271ASection 272A(1)(d)

272A(1)(d) of Rs.30,000/- each for the Asst. Years 2018-19 and 2019-20. 3. Aggrieved against the above orders, the assessee filed appeals before Ld. CIT(A) with condonation delay for the quantum appeals which was condoned by Ld. CIT(A). As the assessee failed to respond to the hearing notices dated

ALISHA PACKAGING INDUSTRIES,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1182/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

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

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 271ASection 272A(1)(d)

272A(1)(d) of Rs.30,000/- each for the Asst. Years 2018-19 and 2019-20. 3. Aggrieved against the above orders, the assessee filed appeals before Ld. CIT(A) with condonation delay for the quantum appeals which was condoned by Ld. CIT(A). As the assessee failed to respond to the hearing notices dated

ALISHA PACKAGING INDUSTRIES,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1184/AHD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

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

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 271ASection 272A(1)(d)

272A(1)(d) of Rs.30,000/- each for the Asst. Years 2018-19 and 2019-20. 3. Aggrieved against the above orders, the assessee filed appeals before Ld. CIT(A) with condonation delay for the quantum appeals which was condoned by Ld. CIT(A). As the assessee failed to respond to the hearing notices dated

SAHEB INDUSTRIES,ANKLESHWAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA

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

ITA 1791/AHD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 40Section 54G

capital gains on such sale of plots and also denied part of the exemption claimed under Section 54G of the Act and thereby assessed the income of the assessee at Rs. 5,93,02,872/-. During the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer observed that there was consistent non-compliance on part of the assessee and accordingly, proceedings under Section

TRUSHA VRAJENDRA SANGHAVI,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD 5(3)(2), AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 2455/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Tr Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Years:2018-19

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 234ASection 250(6)Section 270ASection 272A(1)(d)

272A(1)(d) of the Act. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming action of initiation of penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act. 8. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify or change all or any of the grounds of appeal at the time of or before the hearing of the appeal