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.

41 results for “capital gains”+ Section 139(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,479Delhi1,108Jaipur579Chennai498Bangalore496Kolkata390Ahmedabad372Hyderabad293Surat240Pune194Chandigarh185Indore170Karnataka162Cochin143Nagpur91Raipur71Visakhapatnam70Agra69Calcutta55Guwahati53Cuttack50Lucknow49Rajkot49Amritsar41Jodhpur23Dehradun19Jabalpur15Allahabad15SC15Panaji14Patna12Telangana12Varanasi7Ranchi6Rajasthan3Kerala1Andhra Pradesh1Gauhati1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1

Key Topics

Section 14771Section 14850Addition to Income33Section 143(3)25Section 26323Section 69A21Section 250(6)18Section 14414Deduction14

ATC LOGISTICAL SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, AMRITSAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

ITA 241/ASR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

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

Section 115JSection 139Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 40ASection 40A(7)

139. Return was processed u/s 143(1) and the addition was made for provision of gratuity and disallowance of PF and ESI with other disallowance. The assessee challenged the order u/s 143(1) before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the ld. AO. The assessee further agitated the additions before the ITAT Amritsar Bench

Showing 1–20 of 41 · Page 1 of 3

Section 54B13
Survey u/s 133A11
Capital Gains7

SMT. SATYAWATI MARWAHA THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SH, CHANDER SHEIKHAR MARWAHA,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal for Asstt

ITA 347/ASR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Ashray Sarna, C. A
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 144Section 144rSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 250(6)Section 68

139 of the ‘Act , ( in schedule – EI ) as well as in her computation of income . 17. The Ld. AR has filed before us, a copy of assessment order of the assessee for the Asst year 2013-14, passed u/s 147 rws 144, by the AO central circle – 1, Jalandhar, dated 29/03/2022, where the abovementioned bank account of the assessee held

SMT. SATYAWATI MARWAHA THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SH. CHANDER SHEIKHAR MARWAHA,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal for Asstt

ITA 346/ASR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Ashray Sarna, C. A
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 144Section 144rSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 250(6)Section 68

139 of the ‘Act , ( in schedule – EI ) as well as in her computation of income . 17. The Ld. AR has filed before us, a copy of assessment order of the assessee for the Asst year 2013-14, passed u/s 147 rws 144, by the AO central circle – 1, Jalandhar, dated 29/03/2022, where the abovementioned bank account of the assessee held

SMT. INDERMEET BAINS W/O SH. D.S. BAINS,BATHINDA vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , BATHINDA

The appeal of the assessee is disposed of in the term indicated as above

ITA 250/ASR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar19 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal & Sh. P.N. Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amlendu Nath Misra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

1. That the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT), Bathinda has erred in assuming jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act (the act) and thereby setting aside the order of Assessing Officer (AO) made under section 143(3) read with section 263 of the Act with direction to frame the assessment de novo. 2. That the learned

M/S. SATIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUKTSAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA

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

ITA 193/ASR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

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

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 144C(8)Section 250oSection 69C

139 of the Act. During the assessment proceeding the assessee amended its claim related to income earned from the sale/transfer of RECs/ESCs as capital receipt and recomputed the tax by claiming exemption of tax on said income. The ld. AO issued a draft assessment order by rejecting the same. The assessee filed a petition before the Dispute Resolution Panel

M/S. GULZAR SINGH GURBACHAN SINGH,DISTT.BATHINDA vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, BATHINDA

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 147/ASR/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Feb 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. Nos. 146&147/Asr/2014 Assessment Years: 2007-08&2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)
Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 144Section 184(5)Section 28Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40Section 5

capital account balances in view of section 184(5) of the Act, which reads as under: ‘CHAPTER XVI A. – Assessment of firms Assessment as a firm. 184. (1) A firm shall be assessed as a firm ……. (2) to (4) …… (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act, where, in respect of any assessment year, there

M/S. GULZAR SINGH GURBACHAN SINGH,DISTT.BATHINDA vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, BATHINDA

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 146/ASR/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Feb 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. Nos. 146&147/Asr/2014 Assessment Years: 2007-08&2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)
Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 144Section 184(5)Section 28Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40Section 5

capital account balances in view of section 184(5) of the Act, which reads as under: ‘CHAPTER XVI A. – Assessment of firms Assessment as a firm. 184. (1) A firm shall be assessed as a firm ……. (2) to (4) …… (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act, where, in respect of any assessment year, there

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

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

SMT. ZEENAB,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3),, SRINAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed, whereas the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes on the aforesaid reasons stated above

ITA 433/ASR/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar04 Jul 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhry

For Appellant: Sh. Bashir Ahmed Lone (Ld. CA)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (Ld. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 143(6)Section 147Section 50C

Capital gain at Rs.60,90,052/- and taxed the same accordingly by taking full value of the consideration in terms of section 50C of the Income Tax Act at Rs.1,11,00,000/- for the sale/transfer of 1 kanal and 17 marlas of land. Against the said addition the assessee preferred the first appeal before

ITO, WARD- 3(3), SRINAGAR vs. SMT. ZEENAB, BEMINA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed, whereas the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes on the aforesaid reasons stated above

ITA 430/ASR/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar04 Jul 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhry

For Appellant: Sh. Bashir Ahmed Lone (Ld. CA)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (Ld. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 143(6)Section 147Section 50C

Capital gain at Rs.60,90,052/- and taxed the same accordingly by taking full value of the consideration in terms of section 50C of the Income Tax Act at Rs.1,11,00,000/- for the sale/transfer of 1 kanal and 17 marlas of land. Against the said addition the assessee preferred the first appeal before

SHRI NACHHATER SINGH S/O SHRI GURBAKSH SINGH,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICEER , BATHINDA

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 164/ASR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Jul 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

Section 148Section 151Section 546Section 54B

1 to 3 and it has been mentioned in the reasons that the assessee had made certain transactions regarding the land sale, but no return has been filed and then it has been mentioned that the capital gain issue may arise and needs more enquiry. b). It is submitted for the purpose of 148, there has to be valid reason

SHRI.BOOTA SINGH S/O. SH. NACHATER SINGH, BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(1), BATHINDA

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 162/ASR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Jul 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

Section 148Section 151Section 546Section 54B

1 to 3 and it has been mentioned in the reasons that the assessee had made certain transactions regarding the land sale, but no return has been filed and then it has been mentioned that the capital gain issue may arise and needs more enquiry. b). It is submitted for the purpose of 148, there has to be valid reason

SHRI BABBU SINGH S/O SHRI NACHHATER SINGH,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICEER WARD-2(1), BATHINDA

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 163/ASR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Jul 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

Section 148Section 151Section 546Section 54B

1 to 3 and it has been mentioned in the reasons that the assessee had made certain transactions regarding the land sale, but no return has been filed and then it has been mentioned that the capital gain issue may arise and needs more enquiry. b). It is submitted for the purpose of 148, there has to be valid reason

NEERAJ MITTAL,KATHUA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , KATHUA

In the result, these appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 503/ASR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar17 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 503/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Raghav Arora, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath Sr. DR
Section 50Section 54F

section 50 C of the act, hence the AO has adopted ₹ 4,050,000 as deemed to be the value of consideration as the assessee was being co-owner, having half share in the said property for the purpose of Computing capital gains and accordingly computed long- term capital gains where the AO has rejected the assessee’s claim

SH. SARJU MITTAL,KATHUA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KATHUA

In the result, these appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 504/ASR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar17 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 503/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Raghav Arora, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath Sr. DR
Section 50Section 54F

section 50 C of the act, hence the AO has adopted ₹ 4,050,000 as deemed to be the value of consideration as the assessee was being co-owner, having half share in the said property for the purpose of Computing capital gains and accordingly computed long- term capital gains where the AO has rejected the assessee’s claim

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

139 by pursuing section 147 the notice was issued u/s 148 and case was reopened. Thereafter, the assessment was completed with addition amount of Rs.1,61,43,719/- and Rs.4,29,431/- which works out total amount of Rs.1,75,73,150/- related to deposit in bank from unexplained source. The addition was framed u/s 69C of the Act. Aggrieved

SH. ARSPREET SINGH . S/O. LATE. SH. GURMAIL SINGH ,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE .II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

ITA 61/ASR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2023AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

capital gains which, in the opinion of Ld. AO, was assessable under the head business income. However, the basic condition viz. furnishing of inaccurate particulars / concealment of particulars of income so as to attract the provisions of Section 271(l)(c) have remained unfulfilled in the present case. Therefore, penalty was not justified and the stand

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH S/O LATE SH. GURMAIL SINGH,SHRI MUKATSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

ITA 60/ASR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2023AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

capital gains which, in the opinion of Ld. AO, was assessable under the head business income. However, the basic condition viz. furnishing of inaccurate particulars / concealment of particulars of income so as to attract the provisions of Section 271(l)(c) have remained unfulfilled in the present case. Therefore, penalty was not justified and the stand

LATE. SH. GURMAIL SINGH S/O. SH. LAL SINGH,SRI MUKATSAR vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

ITA 59/ASR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2023AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

capital gains which, in the opinion of Ld. AO, was assessable under the head business income. However, the basic condition viz. furnishing of inaccurate particulars / concealment of particulars of income so as to attract the provisions of Section 271(l)(c) have remained unfulfilled in the present case. Therefore, penalty was not justified and the stand