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.

13 results for “capital gains”+ Section 920clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai167Delhi80Bangalore22Jaipur17Chennai16Ahmedabad13Indore13Kolkata12Hyderabad12Lucknow12Pune6Ranchi6Dehradun4Nagpur3Cochin3Raipur2Rajkot2Jabalpur2Patna2Surat2Chandigarh1Visakhapatnam1

Key Topics

Section 54F17Section 143(3)14Section 14A12Section 1488Deduction7Section 271(1)(c)6Section 2636Addition to Income6Section 1475

TEJALBEN SAMIRKUMAR SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-1, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 78/AHD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 78/Ahd/2021 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2015-2016 Tejalben Samirkumar Shah, Principal Commissioner Of 10, Opera Society, Vs. Income Tax-1, Vibhag-2, Ahmedabad. Paldi, Ahmedabad-380007. Pan: Askps2898E

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Karun K Ojha, CIT.DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 263

gain earned on such transactions shall be allowed u / s * 10(38) of the Act- a legitimate claim. 13. Provisions of the sec. 10(38) Any income arising on or after 01.10.2004 from the transfer of a Long Term Capital Asset being a equity shares in a company shall be exempt provided- Such equity shares are sold through recognized stock

Section 10(38)5
Exemption5
Disallowance5

MOHAN RAMCHANDANI,BANGLORE vs. ACIT-INTL TAX-2 AHEMDABAD, AHMEDABAD GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1944/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2016-17 Mohan Ramchandani Acit-Intl Tax-2 Flat-11001 Boddaballapur Road Vs. Ahmedabad. Presting Monte Carlo Yelahanka Satelite Town So Bangalore North. Pan : Adgpr 0211 D (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Saurabh Gupta, Ar Assessee By : Shri Saresh Kartik Laxmanbhai, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/07/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri Saresh Kartik Laxmanbhai, Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 54ESection 54FSection 54F(4)

920/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS for verification of deduction/exemption from capital gains and investment in immovable property. During the year under consideration, the assessee had sold an immovable property being agricultural land located in Gram Micholi, Tehsil Hapsi, Indore, for a total consideration of Rs.3,15,00,000/- on 29.04.2015. The land was stated

ILABAHEN VIRALKUMAR MEHTA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, ANAND

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

ITA 17/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad Has Arisen From The

For Appellant: Ms. Kinjal V. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Jain, Sr. D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

920/-. As per the information received by the AO, the assessee has traded in the scrip of M/s Hemo Organics Ltd. ( Formerly known as I.T.A No. 17/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2012-13 Page No. 4 Ilabahen Viralkumar Mehta. v. ITO Dinesh Allorga Limited) , amounting to Rs. 4,35,781/-. The A.O. observed that the assessee has not considered this transaction for computing

HANSABEN MAHENDRAKUMAR MEHTA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 295/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 295/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2018-2019 Hansaben Mahendrakumar The Principal Mehta, बनामVs Commissioner Of . 4, Hatkesh Society, Income Tax-1, St. Xavier’S School Road, Ahmedabad. Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009. Pan: Aaxpm0576G

For Appellant: Shri SN Divatia, with Shri Samir Vora, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT. DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54F

920/- The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS to verify the capital gains deduction claimed during the year under consideration and assessment proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961 was finalized on 10.11.2020 accepting the returned income. The Ld.PCIT observed that the assessee had earned Asst. Year 2018-19 3 capital gain on sale of unlisted shares

JAMNABEN PARSHOTTAMDAS PATEL,BANASKANTHA vs. THE ITO, WARD(1), PALANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1801/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R. Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Chand Meena, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

section 271(1)(c), despite full disclosure of income in the return and during assessment proceedings. There was no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars; hence, the penalty of "64,071/- is untenable and deserves to be deleted. 2. Without prejudice to the above, in any case, penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) cannot be levied when the full particulars

SHAH BINIT CHANDRAVADAN, HUF,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 1198/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1198/Ahd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Ketaki Desai, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 153Section 234ASection 250Section 270ASection 68Section 69C

920/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) had issued a notice under section 148 of the Act on 30.03.2021 in response to which the assessee had filed return on 27.04.2021. The assessment was completed u/s 147 rws 144B of the Act at total income of Rs.3,29,68,810/-. The AO had made addition of Rs.3,04,73,424/- in respect

HITENDRA DILIPSINH JADEJA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(2), AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 66/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2017-18 Hitendra Dilipsinh Jadeja The Ito 4, Sanjay Park Society Vs Ward-3(2)(2) Nr.Jogni Mata Temple Ahmedabad Sanand Ahmedabad – 382 110 Gujarat Pan: Agfpj1666A अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms.Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 14/02/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/02/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Ms. Suchitra Kamblethis Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 19/10/2022 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)” In Short] For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms.Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr.DR
Section 234ASection 250(6)Section 44ASection 68

Section 250(6) of the Act. 3. The Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred both in law and on the facts by confirming addition of Rs.9,72,300/- as unexplained agriculture income u/s 68 of the Act without taking into account the arguments of the appellant. Thus, Hon'ble CIT(A) has not taken into account the details submitted

PRASHANT CHANDULAL PARIKH, HUF,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-5(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 369/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 369/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) बनाम/ Prashant Chandulal Assistant Commissioner Of Parikh, Huf Income Tax Vs. C/O M/S. Chandulal J Circle 5(2)(1), Ahmedabad Parikh, 303 Ushadep Complex, Nr. Navrangpura, Railway Crossing, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad 380009 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadhp9467M (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Rajendera K Shah, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/11/2024 /11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Rajendera K Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 54F

capital gain was computed at Rs.4,40,34,860/- in the assessment order. As regarding cash deposits in the bank account, the AO found that the total cash deposit during the year was Rs.24,48,000/-, which was explained to be out of agricultural income. The AO was not satisfied with the explanation of the assessee in this regard

JIGNASA ATULKUMAR SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR.CIT-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1140/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 69Section 69A

920/-. Information received from the department that assessee is one of the beneficiaries of bogus accommodation entries operated and managed by entry operator Shri Naresh Jain. The information also suggests that the assessee is one of the beneficiaries in manipulation of share price of M/s. Oasis Tradelink Ltd. amounting to Rs.40,95,442/- and assessee claimed Long Term Capital Gain

NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,,ANAND vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ANAND CIRCLE,, ANAND

In the result, Ground No. 7 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2994/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Shah & Ms. Aparna Parlekr A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viii)Section 36(1)(xii)

Gains from Business and Profession' and thereby denying depreciation and other expenditure on the said buildings. It is submitted that it be so held now. 5.1 The Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the buildings were given on lease in the ordinary course as a part of its business of Dairy Development and therefore eligible

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX.,ANAND CIRCLE,, ANAND vs. NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD, ANAND

In the result, Ground No. 7 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2954/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Shah & Ms. Aparna Parlekr A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viii)Section 36(1)(xii)

Gains from Business and Profession' and thereby denying depreciation and other expenditure on the said buildings. It is submitted that it be so held now. 5.1 The Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the buildings were given on lease in the ordinary course as a part of its business of Dairy Development and therefore eligible

THE ACIT,ANAND CIRCLE,, ANAND vs. NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD, ANAND

In the result, Ground No. 7 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1873/AHD/2014[2010-11]Status: PendingITAT Ahmedabad17 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Shah & Ms. Aparna Parlekr A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viii)Section 36(1)(xii)

Gains from Business and Profession' and thereby denying depreciation and other expenditure on the said buildings. It is submitted that it be so held now. 5.1 The Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the buildings were given on lease in the ordinary course as a part of its business of Dairy Development and therefore eligible

NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,,ANAND vs. THE ACIT.,ANAND CIRCLE,, ANAND

In the result, Ground No. 7 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2004/AHD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Shah & Ms. Aparna Parlekr A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viii)Section 36(1)(xii)

Gains from Business and Profession' and thereby denying depreciation and other expenditure on the said buildings. It is submitted that it be so held now. 5.1 The Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the buildings were given on lease in the ordinary course as a part of its business of Dairy Development and therefore eligible