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.

40 results for “capital gains”+ Penaltyclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,028Delhi1,718Ahmedabad682Jaipur489Chennai483Bangalore423Kolkata379Hyderabad306Pune295Surat228Chandigarh198Indore189Karnataka129Raipur94Visakhapatnam94Agra91Nagpur73Rajkot68Cochin64Lucknow63Cuttack50Amritsar40Calcutta39Ranchi29Patna24Dehradun22SC19Jodhpur17Guwahati17Telangana14Allahabad8Panaji7Varanasi6Jabalpur5Punjab & Haryana3Gauhati1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1Orissa1Rajasthan1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 14760Section 14839Section 271(1)(c)36Addition to Income29Section 69A25Penalty18Section 143(3)17Section 250(6)14Long Term Capital Gains14

SH. VIJAY KUMAR,PROP. ,MOGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3, MOGA

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

ITA 129/ASR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Ghansham Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

gain at Rs. 5,51,827 instead of (-) Rs.57,518/- shown by the assessee in the computation of income. It is observed from the penalty order that the assessee has not cared even to file proper reply at the time of penalty proceedings even after availing opportunities. The Assessing Officer has discussed the issue pertaining undisclosed long term capital

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TARN TARAN vs. ESTATE OF LATE SH. JAGIR SINGH BHULLAR, TARN TARAN

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

Showing 1–20 of 40 · Page 1 of 2

Survey u/s 133A12
Section 28210
Section 151(2)10
ITA 591/ASR/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Dec 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.306/Asr/2014 & 591/Asr/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Estate Of Sh. Jagir Singh Bhullar Vs. Income Tax Officer, Through S. Jasbir—Singh Ward-1(3), Bhullar, Tarn Taran, E-250 Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar, Punjab. Punjab.

For Appellant: Sh. Padam Bahl, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass , DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 168Section 263Section 271(1)

capital gains tax on the basis of actual receipts during the year, as mentioned in the covered case (supra).As the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the coordinate bench, in the case of Shri Prem Singh Lalpura (deceased) through only local L/Hr. Mr. Daljit Singh-son (supra), and there is no change

ESTATE OF SH. JAGIR SINGH BHULLAR,AMRITSAR. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TARN TARAN

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

ITA 306/ASR/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Dec 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.306/Asr/2014 & 591/Asr/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Estate Of Sh. Jagir Singh Bhullar Vs. Income Tax Officer, Through S. Jasbir—Singh Ward-1(3), Bhullar, Tarn Taran, E-250 Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar, Punjab. Punjab.

For Appellant: Sh. Padam Bahl, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass , DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 168Section 263Section 271(1)

capital gains tax on the basis of actual receipts during the year, as mentioned in the covered case (supra).As the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the coordinate bench, in the case of Shri Prem Singh Lalpura (deceased) through only local L/Hr. Mr. Daljit Singh-son (supra), and there is no change

SH. RAGHUNATH SAHAI PURI(DECD),PATHANKOT vs. THE DEPTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATHANKOT

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

ITA 633/ASR/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar19 Dec 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Choudhry & Sh. O. P. Meenai.T.A. No. 633/Asr/2014 Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. J. S. Bhasin (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Alok Kumar CIT-DR
Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 45Section 48

penalty of Rs.39.80 lacs on deceased assessee, as imposed by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) for the alleged non disclosure of capital, gain

MESERS EMBROCIA FARMS PVT LTD,PATHANKOT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, PATHANKOT

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is (in ITA No

ITA 561/ASR/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 May 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. Nos. 561/Asr/2018 & 284/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Sh. Tarsem Lal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C

capital gain by Rs.25.90 lacs (Rs.234.91 lacs – Rs.209.01 lacs), also initiating penalty proceedings for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 2.2 In appeal

M/S EMBROCIA FARMS PVT LTD. ,PATHANKOT vs. D.C.I.T, CIRCLE-6,, PATHANKOT

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is (in ITA No

ITA 284/ASR/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 May 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. Nos. 561/Asr/2018 & 284/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Sh. Tarsem Lal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C

capital gain by Rs.25.90 lacs (Rs.234.91 lacs – Rs.209.01 lacs), also initiating penalty proceedings for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 2.2 In appeal

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, JALANDHAR vs. SH. SARWAN SINGH PHILLAUR, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 562/ASR/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar14 Feb 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi. T. A. No. 562/(Asr)/2015 Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. R.K.Sarna, ARFor Respondent: Shri Bhawani Shankar, DR
Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 54

capital gains of Rs. 1,83,75,000/- in the hands of the assessee. 4. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. On further appeal, before the Tribunal, the Amritsar Bench of the Tribunal confirmed the findings of the AO. 6. Thereafter, the AO levied penalty

SH. SARWAN SINGH PHILLAUR,JALANDHAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 531/ASR/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar14 Feb 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi. T. A. No. 562/(Asr)/2015 Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. R.K.Sarna, ARFor Respondent: Shri Bhawani Shankar, DR
Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 54

capital gains of Rs. 1,83,75,000/- in the hands of the assessee. 4. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. On further appeal, before the Tribunal, the Amritsar Bench of the Tribunal confirmed the findings of the AO. 6. Thereafter, the AO levied penalty

M/S. WORLDWIDE FOURTUNE HOMES ,KATHUA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMMU

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

ITA 197/ASR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar03 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 292CSection 69A

capital gains I.T.A. No. 197/Asr/2023 5 Assessment Year: 2018-19 u/s 45 of the Act for the above said assessment year. Further the assessee has under reported its income in consequence to misreporting thereof, therefore, necessary penalty

M/S SACHEDEVA & SONGS INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD,AMRITSAR. vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5,, AMRITSAR.

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

ITA 657/ASR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar09 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. B.R. Baskaran & Sh. N.K.Choudhryassessment Year:2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. Padam Bahl (Ld. CA)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (Ld. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 271

penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act were initiated. In the return the assessee had shown interalia income under the head long term capital gain

SHRI BRIJINDERPAL SINGH BHULLAR,MOHALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 1 (3), BATHINDA

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 671/ASR/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Ravish Sood & Dr. M. L. Meena

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Trilochan Singh PS Khalsa, DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

capital gain tax only when the same was so received, and not otherwise. Accordingly, the CIT(A) in terms of his aforesaid observations partly allowed the appeal. 5. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before us. At the very outset of the hearing of the appeal, it was submitted

SHRI BARJINDERPAL SINGH BHULLAR,MOHALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 1 (3), BATHINDA

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 672/ASR/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Ravish Sood & Dr. M. L. Meena

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Trilochan Singh PS Khalsa, DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

capital gain tax only when the same was so received, and not otherwise. Accordingly, the CIT(A) in terms of his aforesaid observations partly allowed the appeal. 5. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before us. At the very outset of the hearing of the appeal, it was submitted

M/S. JAMMU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,,JAMMU ( J&K) vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 498/ASR/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Mar 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryita No. 498/Asr./2013 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Jammu Development Authority, Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vikas Bhawan, Rail Head Tax, Circle-I, Complex, Jammu, J & K Jammu (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadfj7335A Ita No. 494/Asr./2013 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs Jammu Development Authority, Tax, Circle-I, Vikas Bhawan, Rail Head Jammu Complex, Jammu, J & K (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcp1720E Assessee By : Shri. R. K. Gupta, Ca & Shri. Vasu Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri. M. P. Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing :21.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Dated 06.05.2013, Jammu.

For Appellant: Shri. R. K. Gupta, CA &For Respondent: Shri. M. P. Singh, CIT DR

gains u/s 45 of the Act two amounts are necessary. Those are amount of sale consideration and amount of cost. 37. In the instant case, the cost to the assessee of the said nazul land was Nil and the cost to its predecessor which is State Government is not ascertainable. Therefore, the computation provision fails in the instant case

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. JAMMU DEVELPMENT AUTHORITY,, JAMMU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 494/ASR/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Mar 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryita No. 498/Asr./2013 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Jammu Development Authority, Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vikas Bhawan, Rail Head Tax, Circle-I, Complex, Jammu, J & K Jammu (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadfj7335A Ita No. 494/Asr./2013 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs Jammu Development Authority, Tax, Circle-I, Vikas Bhawan, Rail Head Jammu Complex, Jammu, J & K (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcp1720E Assessee By : Shri. R. K. Gupta, Ca & Shri. Vasu Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri. M. P. Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing :21.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Dated 06.05.2013, Jammu.

For Appellant: Shri. R. K. Gupta, CA &For Respondent: Shri. M. P. Singh, CIT DR

gains u/s 45 of the Act two amounts are necessary. Those are amount of sale consideration and amount of cost. 37. In the instant case, the cost to the assessee of the said nazul land was Nil and the cost to its predecessor which is State Government is not ascertainable. Therefore, the computation provision fails in the instant case

M/S SHANKAR RICE & GENERAL MILLS ,MOGA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE, MOGA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 205/ASR/2023[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Amritsar06 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kumar & Ms. Muskan GargFor Respondent: Sh. Rajiv Wadhera, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 133ASection 250(6)Section 69Section 69A

capital gains, nor is it income from "other sources" because the provisions of sections 69.69A, 69B and 69C meat unexplained investment, unexplained money, bullion, etc., and unexplained expenditure as deemed income where the nature and source of investment, acquisition or expenditure, as the case may be, have not been explained or satisfactorily explained, Therefore, in these cases, the source

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUKTSAR vs. SH. MANPREET SINGH BADAL, MUKTSAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 616/ASR/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Feb 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryita No. 616/Asr./2015 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Income Tax Officer, Vs Shri. Manpreet Singh Badal, Ward-Ii(2), S/O Shri. Gurdas Singh Badal, Muktsar Vill Badal, Distt. Muktsar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Afjpb2460B

For Appellant: Shri. Ashwani Kalia, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Ratinder Kaur, DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was imposed after confirmation of addition on account of long term capital gains

M/S. DADA MOTOR GARAGE,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, JALANDHAR

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

ITA 559/ASR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 234Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

capital gain has wrongly been made. 3. That the valuation of property is against law, facts and material on record further the reference to DVO in respect of other asset is absolutely incorrect. I.T.A. No.559/Asr/2018 5 Assessment Year: 2015-16 4. That the appellant request for the deletion of the impugned addition by accepting the returned loss. 5. That

INCOME TAX OFICER, WARD1(3), JALANDHAR vs. SH. RAJESH MAYUR, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 400/ASR/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year : 2010-11 The Income-Tax Officer, Vs. Shri Rajesh Mayor, Ward-1(3), M/S Mayor & Co., Jalandhar. G.T. Road, Jalandhar. Pan: Acgpm7469P (Appellants) (Respondents)

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Vijh, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Negi
Section 271(1)(c)

capital gain and, thereafter, penalty was imposed with reference to such addition. The ld. CIT(A) deleted the penalty. The Revenue

SMT. JANAK RANI DHINGRA,HARYANA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, MOGA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 294/ASR/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Feb 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi. T. A. No. 294/(Asr)/2016 Assessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Sh. P.N. Arora, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Bhawani Shankar, DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 54Section 54F

Capital Gains from sale of residential house as declared by the Assessee. Thereafter, the AO levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act of Rs. 1,60,000/- being

THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, AMRITSAR. vs. SH. RAJIV MEHRA PROP., AMRITSAR.

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 452/ASR/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar14 Feb 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi. T. A. No. 452(Asr)/2014 Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kalia, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Bhawani Shankar, DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

Capital Gains’ to Rs. 84,17,645/- to Rs. 1,70,737/-. 5. The Revenue carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal reversed the order of the CIT(A). 6. Thereafter, the AO levied penalty