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.

5 results for “capital gains”+ Section 153Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi475Mumbai463Jaipur221Bangalore194Chennai172Hyderabad135Cochin114Ahmedabad110Visakhapatnam53Nagpur44Pune41Chandigarh34Indore30Guwahati26Surat16Raipur16Lucknow14Kolkata11Karnataka10Dehradun10Amritsar5Kerala5Jodhpur4Panaji2Jabalpur2Telangana2Rajkot2Allahabad2Agra1Calcutta1Rajasthan1Cuttack1

Key Topics

Section 153C15Section 153A4Section 1474Section 1444Section 1323Addition to Income3Section 263(1)2Section 143(2)2Section 54B2Search & Seizure

DY . C.I.T, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1,, JALANDHAR vs. SH. RANJIT SINGH , JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 241/ASR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar03 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Sh. Ravish Soodita No.241/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs Sh. Ranjit Singh, Tax, Central Circle-I, Jalandhar S/O Sh. Mehnga Singh, Vpo-Beas Pind, District-Jalandhar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ctjps4497P Co No.23/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Sh. Ranjit Singh, Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, S/O Sh. Mehnga Singh, Vpo- Central Circle-I, Jalandhar Beas Pind, District-Jalandhar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ctjps4497P Ita No.242/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs Sh. Charan Singh Urf Gurcharan Tax, Central Circle-I, Jalandhar Singh, S/O Sh. Dhanna Singh, Vpo- Sarmastpur, Jalandhar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Fifps1985G Co No.25/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Sh. Charan Singh Urf Gurcharan Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Singh, S/O Sh. Dhanna Singh, Central Circle-I, Jalandhar Vpo-Sarmastpur, Jalandhar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Fifps1985G Assessee By : Sh. S. S. Kalra, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Bhawani Shankar, Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.01.2019

For Appellant: Sh. S. S. Kalra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Bhawani Shankar, DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 153A
2
Exemption2
Reassessment2
Section 153C
Section 54B

section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the ground that assessment should have been framed u/s 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 when documents seized did not belong solely to Sh. Charan Singh Urf Gurcharan Singh. And that Sh. Charan Singh Urf Gurcharan Singh was just party to the land sale/purchase transaction, being owner of the land

D.C.I.T, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, JALANDHAR vs. SH. CHARAN SINGH, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 242/ASR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar03 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Sh. Ravish Soodita No.241/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs Sh. Ranjit Singh, Tax, Central Circle-I, Jalandhar S/O Sh. Mehnga Singh, Vpo-Beas Pind, District-Jalandhar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ctjps4497P Co No.23/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Sh. Ranjit Singh, Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, S/O Sh. Mehnga Singh, Vpo- Central Circle-I, Jalandhar Beas Pind, District-Jalandhar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ctjps4497P Ita No.242/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs Sh. Charan Singh Urf Gurcharan Tax, Central Circle-I, Jalandhar Singh, S/O Sh. Dhanna Singh, Vpo- Sarmastpur, Jalandhar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Fifps1985G Co No.25/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Sh. Charan Singh Urf Gurcharan Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Singh, S/O Sh. Dhanna Singh, Central Circle-I, Jalandhar Vpo-Sarmastpur, Jalandhar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Fifps1985G Assessee By : Sh. S. S. Kalra, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Bhawani Shankar, Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.01.2019

For Appellant: Sh. S. S. Kalra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Bhawani Shankar, DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 153CSection 54B

section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the ground that assessment should have been framed u/s 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 when documents seized did not belong solely to Sh. Charan Singh Urf Gurcharan Singh. And that Sh. Charan Singh Urf Gurcharan Singh was just party to the land sale/purchase transaction, being owner of the land

SH. SANTOKH SINGH BRAR,MOGA vs. ITO, WARD - 2,, MOGA

ITA 206/ASR/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 263(1)

Gains of Rs.81,53,086/- instead of loss on account of transfer of long term capital asset. The Assessing Officer has not enquired even from the assessee the reasons for selling the property at a rate which would yield Long Term Capital Loss as a prudent person would not sell property the property which would yield losses. But, even

SH. GURBACHAN SINGH BRAR,MOGA vs. ITO, WARD - 1,, MOGA

ITA 207/ASR/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 263(1)

Gains of Rs.81,53,086/- instead of loss on account of transfer of long term capital asset. The Assessing Officer has not enquired even from the assessee the reasons for selling the property at a rate which would yield Long Term Capital Loss as a prudent person would not sell property the property which would yield losses. But, even

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)

153C of the Act for the past years, it was noticed that major part of the funds were utilised and remained blocked in investment in immovable properties, which were not utilised any timefor the business of the assessee and upon advances to entities with which there was no direct or indirect business dealing. The assessee himself has not claimed