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.

12 results for “capital gains”+ Section 191clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai362Delhi338Bangalore190Chennai162Karnataka110Surat82Jaipur80Hyderabad76Indore68Ahmedabad65Kolkata60Pune45Raipur40Chandigarh30Cochin29Calcutta18Amritsar12Lucknow12Telangana10Rajkot9Nagpur7SC7Ranchi7Allahabad6Dehradun6Guwahati5Varanasi5Agra3Cuttack3Rajasthan3Visakhapatnam3Jodhpur2Panaji2Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 14415Section 689Section 41(1)8Section 1487Addition to Income7Section 184(5)6Section 1475Section 143(3)5Disallowance4

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

Capital Gain. The action of AO in making additions u/s 69A of the Act and disallowing the claim of LTCG being exempt u/s 10(38) is fully justified. In view thereof, addition of Rs. 2,11,81,016/- made by the AO is upheld Accordingly, these grounds of appeal are dismissed.” 9. Now the assessee is in appeal before

Section 1433
House Property3
Cash Deposit3

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

Capital Gain. The action of AO in making additions u/s 69A of the Act and disallowing the claim of LTCG being exempt u/s 10(38) is fully justified. In view thereof, addition of Rs. 2,11,81,016/- made by the AO is upheld Accordingly, these grounds of appeal are dismissed.” 9. Now the assessee is in appeal before

SHRI AJAIB SINGH,BATHINDA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, BATHINDA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 78/ASR/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar01 Jul 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 78/Asr/2015 Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora & P. K. Singla (Advs.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 2(47)(v)Section 2(47)(vi)Section 53A

gain had not arisen, which income is subject to tax on the basis of the accrual, i.e., irrespective of the non-receipt of the consideration. This is as once the income has accrued, which is only on the basis of transfer of the relevant capital asset, the only recourse in law in case of non-recovery is the enforcement

SHRI BALJINDER SINGH ,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), BATHINDA

In the result, both the appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

ITA 148/ASR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Sh. J. K. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR
Section 148Section 69A

191 ITR 662, for initiation of action under section 147(a) (as the provision stood at the relevant time) fulfilment of the two requisite conditions in that regard is essential. At that stage, the final outcome of the proceeding is not relevant. In other words, at the initiation stage, what is required is "reason to believe", but not the established

SHRIMATI MANJIT KAUR,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2 (1), BATHINDA

In the result, both the appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

ITA 147/ASR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Sh. J. K. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR
Section 148Section 69A

191 ITR 662, for initiation of action under section 147(a) (as the provision stood at the relevant time) fulfilment of the two requisite conditions in that regard is essential. At that stage, the final outcome of the proceeding is not relevant. In other words, at the initiation stage, what is required is "reason to believe", but not the established

SHRI OM PARKASH LEGAL HEIAR SMT PUSHPA VERMA,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(3), JALANDHAR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 756/ASR/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 Oct 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 756/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. Ashray Sarna (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 41(1)Section 41(1)(a)Section 68

gains of the business or profession, and accordingly chargeable to income-tax as the income of that previous year. Explanation 1.—For the purposes of this sub-section, the expression “loss or expenditure or some benefit in respect of any such trading liability by way of remission or cessation thereof” shall include the remission or cessation of any liability

DR. HARPRIT SINGH ,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 195/ASR/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar19 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.संसंसंसं././././I.T.A No.195/Asr/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/A.Y.:2011-12 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" Dr. Harprit Singh, C/O M/S. Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Orthonova Hospital, Near Nari Income-Tax, Niketan, Nakoddar Road, Central Circle –Ii, Jalandhar Jalandhar(Pb) (Pb) Pan: Acmps 7237 F अपीलाथ"Appellant अपीलाथ" ""यथ"/Respondent ""यथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" ""यथ" ""यथ"

Section 133(6)Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69

191 ITR 634 (SC) was given in the context of quantification of tax and interest thereon. In said case, the AO had not quantified interest chargeable to tax and made part of assessment Dr. Harprit Singh v. DCIT-CC-II, Jalandhar/I.T.A. No.195/ASR/2018/A.Y.:11-12 Page 8 of 11 order. Therefore, the Hon`ble Supreme Court held that has advised Department

SH. LALIT DEEWAN,JAMMU vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-2, JAMMU

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 453/ASR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar28 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi. T. A. No. 453/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. C J S Nanda (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)
Section 144Section 54F

section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' hereinafter) vide order dated 22.01.2016 for Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14. 2. The facts of the case in-so-far as are relevant are that the assessee sold an immovable property, being a plot of land (at Gattha Sohana, Haryana) during the 2 Lalit Dewan v. Dy. CIT relevant year

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

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, AMRITSAR. vs. SH. SHIV RAJ SINGH BAWA, AMRITSAR.

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed and the assessee’s CO, dismissed

ITA 407/ASR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 407/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)For Respondent: Sh. Tarun Bansal (Adv.)
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

gains of business or profession under sub-section (3) and this sub-section where a payment or aggregate of payments made to a person in a day, otherwise than by an account payee cheques drawn on a bank or account payee bank draft, exceeds twenty thousand rupees, in such cases and under such circumstances as may be prescribed, having regard

SH. GURJEET SINGH,AMRITSAR. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, AMRITSAR.

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 597/ASR/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 597/Asr/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. Satish Bansal (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

capital.’ 3. The assessee’s case before me is that ‘the availability of cash’ with him (the assessee) for making the payment/s, evidenced by cash receipts (not forming part of the record, though, to be fair, on being asked to during hearing, were produced by the ld. counsel for the assessee, Sh. Bansal), is not in doubt. Where