Search: capital gains | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

599 results for “capital gains”+ Section 10clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai7,154 Delhi5,495 Bangalore2,318 Chennai2,097 Kolkata1,637 Ahmedabad1,509 Jaipur1,094 Hyderabad1,015 Pune982 Surat629 Chandigarh599 Indore502 Karnataka445 Cochin340 Visakhapatnam337 Raipur270 Rajkot223 Nagpur209 Cuttack169 Amritsar159 Lucknow150 Agra148 Guwahati110 Panaji107 Calcutta104 Telangana95 SC95 Ranchi77 Dehradun68 Patna65 Jodhpur63 Jabalpur41 Allahabad33 Kerala22 Varanasi21 Punjab & Haryana9 Rajasthan8 Orissa7 A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2 Gauhati2 Andhra Pradesh2 ANIL R. DAVE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1 ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1 MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1 A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1 D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1 K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1 Himachal Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 26355 Section 143(3)38 Addition to Income35 Section 2832 Section 14831 Deduction31 Disallowance26 Section 54B21 Section 15421

SANJEEV KUMAR KATHURIA,YAMUNA NAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 , YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 329/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(3)

10] The mode and the manner of computing the capital gains is provided under section 48. As per section 48, the income

SH. ANIKET SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Showing 1–20 of 599 · Page 1 of 30

...

Limitation/Time-bar21

Section 45(5)20

ITA 718/CHANDI/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

For Respondent: Shri G.C. Srinivastava, Spl.Counsel

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 132ASection 153ASection 153A(1)Section 250(6)

capital gain to them which was exempted under section 10(38) of the Act by manipulating in the price of the shares

SH. SANJAY SINGAL HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

ITA 705/CHANDI/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

For Respondent: Shri G.C. Srinivastava, Spl.Counsel

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 132ASection 153ASection 153A(1)Section 250(6)

capital gain to them which was exempted under section 10(38) of the Act by manipulating in the price of the shares

SH. SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

ITA 708/CHANDI/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

For Respondent: Shri G.C. Srinivastava, Spl.Counsel

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 132ASection 153ASection 153A(1)Section 250(6)

capital gain to them which was exempted under section 10(38) of the Act by manipulating in the price of the shares

SH. SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

ITA 711/CHANDI/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

For Respondent: Shri G.C. Srinivastava, Spl.Counsel

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 132ASection 153ASection 153A(1)Section 250(6)

capital gain to them which was exempted under section 10(38) of the Act by manipulating in the price of the shares

SMT. AARTI SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

ITA 717/CHANDI/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

For Respondent: Shri G.C. Srinivastava, Spl.Counsel

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 132ASection 153ASection 153A(1)Section 250(6)

capital gain to them which was exempted under section 10(38) of the Act by manipulating in the price of the shares

SH. ANIKET SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

ITA 719/CHANDI/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

For Respondent: Shri G.C. Srinivastava, Spl.Counsel

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 132ASection 153ASection 153A(1)Section 250(6)

capital gain to them which was exempted under section 10(38) of the Act by manipulating in the price of the shares

SMT. AARTI SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

ITA 714/CHANDI/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

For Respondent: Shri G.C. Srinivastava, Spl.Counsel

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 132ASection 153ASection 153A(1)Section 250(6)

capital gain to them which was exempted under section 10(38) of the Act by manipulating in the price of the shares

SMT. AARTI SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

ITA 716/CHANDI/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

For Respondent: Shri G.C. Srinivastava, Spl.Counsel

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 132ASection 153ASection 153A(1)Section 250(6)

capital gain to them which was exempted under section 10(38) of the Act by manipulating in the price of the shares

SH. SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

ITA 710/CHANDI/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

For Respondent: Shri G.C. Srinivastava, Spl.Counsel

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 132ASection 153ASection 153A(1)Section 250(6)

capital gain to them which was exempted under section 10(38) of the Act by manipulating in the price of the shares

SH. AMAR SINGH,JAGADHARI vs. ITO, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, both the appeal of different assessees are allowed

ITA 365/CHANDI/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit GoelFor Respondent: Smt. Chandrakanta

10. This appeal by assessee has been directed against the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) Panchkula dated 16/09/2015 for assessment year 2007-08. 13. In ground Nos.1, 2 & 3, assessee challenged the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) in upholding the addition of Rs. 1,88,43,554/- on account of long term capital gain on sale of agricultural land

SH. JAI RAM,JAGADHARI vs. ITO, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, both the appeal of different assessees are allowed

ITA 366/CHANDI/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit GoelFor Respondent: Smt. Chandrakanta

10. This appeal by assessee has been directed against the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) Panchkula dated 16/09/2015 for assessment year 2007-08. 13. In ground Nos.1, 2 & 3, assessee challenged the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) in upholding the addition of Rs. 1,88,43,554/- on account of long term capital gain on sale of agricultural land

HET RAM SHARMA,MANDI vs. ITO, , SUNDERNAGAR

In the result, both the above appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 482/CHANDI/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year: 2008-09 Shri. Het Ram Sharma Vs. The Ito Vill & P.O. Tattapani Sundernagar Tehsil Karsog Mandi, H.P. Mandi, H.P.

For Appellant: Sh. V.K. GuptaFor Respondent: Sh. Akhilesh Gupta

Section 148Section 45Section 54

capital gain earned there on as STCG as per the provisions of Section 50 of the Act. 10. Ld. DR at this

DHEERUMAL SHARMA,MANDI vs. ITO, SUNDERNAGAR

In the result, both the above appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 483/CHANDI/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year: 2008-09 Shri. Het Ram Sharma Vs. The Ito Vill & P.O. Tattapani Sundernagar Tehsil Karsog Mandi, H.P. Mandi, H.P.

For Appellant: Sh. V.K. GuptaFor Respondent: Sh. Akhilesh Gupta

Section 148Section 45Section 54

capital gain earned there on as STCG as per the provisions of Section 50 of the Act. 10. Ld. DR at this

SHRI KRISHAN KUMAR JALAN,BANGALORE vs. ITO, W-1, SIRSA

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 933/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: \nShri P.K. Prasad, Advocate &For Respondent: \nDr. Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 253Section 68

10(38) of\nthe Act.\n2.7 That as per the details of statement of long term capital gains\ntransaction, tax exempt under Section

SHRI SANJAY JAIN,BATHINDA vs. PR.CIT(CENTRAL), LUDHIANA

ITA 140/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Sarabjeet Singh, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57

Capital Gain’ for which, the exemption u/s 10(36) had been claimed as well as the issue of deduction claimed u/s 57 of the Act. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee gave a detailed response to the show cause notice demonstrating that the AO had conducted adequate enquiries on both the issues mentioned in the show cause notice

TARUN JAIN,BATHINDA vs. PR.CIT(CENTRAL), LUDHIANA

ITA 144/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Sarabjeet Singh, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57

Capital Gain’ for which, the exemption u/s 10(36) had been claimed as well as the issue of deduction claimed u/s 57 of the Act. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee gave a detailed response to the show cause notice demonstrating that the AO had conducted adequate enquiries on both the issues mentioned in the show cause notice

RAJNI JAIN,BATHINDA vs. PR.CIT(CENTRAL), LUDHIANA

ITA 142/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Sarabjeet Singh, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57

Capital Gain’ for which, the exemption u/s 10(36) had been claimed as well as the issue of deduction claimed u/s 57 of the Act. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee gave a detailed response to the show cause notice demonstrating that the AO had conducted adequate enquiries on both the issues mentioned in the show cause notice

SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

ITA 655/CHANDI/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 250(6)Section 68Section 69ASection 69C

capital gains exempted under section 10 (38). Once the appellant was made aware of the result of investigation made by the SEBI

M/S SANJAY SINGAL HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

ITA 610/CHANDI/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 250(6)Section 68Section 69ASection 69C

capital gains exempted under section 10 (38). Once the appellant was made aware of the result of investigation made by the SEBI