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.

14 results for “capital gains”+ Section 133(6)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai624Delhi422Bangalore137Jaipur134Ahmedabad128Chennai119Kolkata70Hyderabad64Cochin61Indore55Pune52Raipur48Chandigarh39Surat36Visakhapatnam22Patna22Guwahati19Lucknow19Nagpur18Amritsar14Rajkot13Cuttack6Jodhpur6Dehradun5Agra4Ranchi4Allahabad3Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)12Addition to Income10Section 688Section 250(6)7Section 2636Section 366Section 56(2)(vii)5Section 1485Section 2505

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 (1), JAMMU vs. SHRI MOHD ASLAM BAGGAR, JAMMU

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 104/ASR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar28 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Sh. Joginder Singh, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Hitendra Bhauraoji Ninawe, CIT DR
Section 10Section 10(37)Section 45(5)

capital gain tax is chargeable on the compulsory acquisition of the urban land by resorting to the provisions of section 45(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is unsustainable in view of the provisions of amended sub-section (37) of section 10 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 11. There is no dispute as far as this condition

SH. AMRIT LAL BATRA, PROP.,SRINAGAR vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, JAMMU

Capital Gains4
Disallowance4
Business Income3

Appeals of the appellant are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

ITA 211/ASR/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar06 Oct 2023AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Aggarwal, Sr. DR

6. First, we take up the Issue with regard to treatment of purchase and sale of shares as adventure in the nature of trade i.e.Business income or income from capital gains. The Hon’ble High Court set aside the matter by observing vide para 4 and 5 of its judgement as under: Amrit Lal Batra v. Addl./Dy.CIT

SHRI AMRIT LAL BATRA,SRINAGAR vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-3, SRINAGAR

Appeals of the appellant are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

ITA 482/ASR/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar06 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Aggarwal, Sr. DR

6. First, we take up the Issue with regard to treatment of purchase and sale of shares as adventure in the nature of trade i.e.Business income or income from capital gains. The Hon’ble High Court set aside the matter by observing vide para 4 and 5 of its judgement as under: Amrit Lal Batra v. Addl./Dy.CIT

SHRI ONKAR SINGH ,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, HOSHIARPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee ITA No

ITA 48/ASR/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Aug 2023AY 2008-09

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

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 68

section 133(6) of the Act, 1961 but the purchasers had denied and stated that they had purchased land only for Rs. 15,00,000/-. The conveyance deed was executed on 23.05.2006 by Mr. Onkar Singh and was witnessed by Shri Bacchan Singh and Shri Sukhveer Singh. The statement of Shir Onkar Singh that Rs.44,00,000/- alleged to have

SHRI ONKAR SINGH,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, HOSHIARPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee ITA No

ITA 47/ASR/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Aug 2023AY 2007-08

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

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 68

section 133(6) of the Act, 1961 but the purchasers had denied and stated that they had purchased land only for Rs. 15,00,000/-. The conveyance deed was executed on 23.05.2006 by Mr. Onkar Singh and was witnessed by Shri Bacchan Singh and Shri Sukhveer Singh. The statement of Shir Onkar Singh that Rs.44,00,000/- alleged to have

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRITSAR. vs. SH. JAIMAL SINGH, L/H. SH. PREM CHAND,, TARN TARAN

In the result, the appeal bearing ITA No

ITA 82/ASR/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar09 Nov 2023AY 2008-09

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

Section 139(9)Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)Section 263

Capital gains tax in respect of the property at 22 Butts, Crescent, Hanworth, Fetham, London of late Prem Chand sold on 10-11-2006 was taxable in India in the assessment year 2007-08 since the transfer of the said property took place in FY 2006-07, and was not taxable in the assessment year under consideration. Likewise, the other

SH. GURJINDER SINGH,AMRITSAR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, AMRITSAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 185/ASR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kalia, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Balwinder Kaur, CIT DR
Section 194CSection 263

133(6) had stated that the said amount of rs.12866154 pertain to claims received form Apex Marketing on account of damaged goods returned to them in earlier years. It has further stated that they neither gave the assessee claims in the shape of goods or by making payments of the said amount nor did it acknowledge the said claim which

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(5), JALANDHAR vs. SHRI NITIN PAL SINGH , JALANDHAR

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

ITA 46/ASR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

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

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 250(6)Section 68

capital Gains.” 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-Jalandhar has grossly erred in law in concluding that Rs. 24604/- being interest income has not been declared in the return. 5. That the Appellant requests for leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is heard

SHRI. NITIN PAL SINGH ,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(3), JALANDHAR

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

ITA 65/ASR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

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

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 250(6)Section 68

capital Gains.” 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-Jalandhar has grossly erred in law in concluding that Rs. 24604/- being interest income has not been declared in the return. 5. That the Appellant requests for leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is heard

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, SRINAGAR vs. M/S TRUMBO CEMENT INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, SRINAGAR

In the result, the Ground no-1 of the Revenue for ITA No

ITA 124/ASR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 May 2023AY 2015-16

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

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 23(1)(va)Section 250Section 36Section 43BSection 68

133(6) of the I.T. Act, 1961. In this case, the Assessing Officer has not made any such efforts and failed to take any remedial action in the hands of the Directors, if he was of the opinion that they should have shown iand transactions and Capita! Gain from that, in their returns of income. The issue whether there

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, SRINAGAR vs. M/S TRUMBO CEMENT INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED , SRINAGAR

In the result, the Ground no-1 of the Revenue for ITA No

ITA 123/ASR/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 May 2023AY 2012-13

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

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 23(1)(va)Section 250Section 36Section 43BSection 68

133(6) of the I.T. Act, 1961. In this case, the Assessing Officer has not made any such efforts and failed to take any remedial action in the hands of the Directors, if he was of the opinion that they should have shown iand transactions and Capita! Gain from that, in their returns of income. The issue whether there

SHRI BHUPINDER SINGH ( PROP) THE NEST HOTELS & MOTELS,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, JALANDHAR

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

ITA 250/ASR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

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

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250oSection 56(2)(vii)

section 56(2)(vii) were not applicable to the facts of the case. 5 That in the case of S. Kuldip Singh (brother) who is transferor, whose case for the same assessment year was reopened u/s 148 for non-showing of Capital Gains in respect of same property and where the explanation of the assessee was duly accepted and proceedings

SHRI GURBINDER SINGH MAHAL,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-IV ( 2), AMRITSAR

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

ITA 22/ASR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

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

Section 144Section 144oSection 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 250o

section 250(4)] through banks instead of disposing off the appeal for non-appearance without adjudicating on merits. 7. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, or alter any of the grounds of appeal.” I.T.A. No.22/Asr/2023 4 Assessment Year: 2014-15 2. The case was called for hearing, first, the ld. DR filed an adjournment petition before the bench

GURU NANAK MILK PRODUCTS ,FEROZEPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

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

ITA 132/ASR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar09 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

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

Section 132Section 133Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153BSection 153CSection 250(6)

133. The notice u/s 153C was issued. The assessee filed return and claimed the carry forward loss amount to Rs.1,59,20,750/- against the net profit amount to Rs.2,60,02,235/-. The loss was carry forwarded from the earlier assessment years 2012-13 to 2014-15. On verification of the record, the ld. AO found that the loss