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.

6 results for “capital gains”+ Section 239clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai194Delhi146Bangalore64Jaipur47Chennai41Kolkata33Pune14Hyderabad14Indore14Nagpur14Ahmedabad7Chandigarh6Surat5Varanasi5Patna4Ranchi3Lucknow2Jodhpur2Amritsar2Raipur2Visakhapatnam1Allahabad1Cochin1Dehradun1Panaji1Agra1

Key Topics

Section 14A8Section 80P6Disallowance6Addition to Income4Section 57o2Section 80P(2)(a)2Section 12A2Section 143(2)2Section 142(1)

THE PUNJAB STATE FEDERATION OF COOPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETIES LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 797/CHANDI/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Atul Goyal, C.A (Virtual Mode)For Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 57oSection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

239/- of the appellant as long term capital Chandigarh disallowing the claim of Rs. 14,95,610/- of gain and treating the same as business income the appellant as long term capital gain and treating amounting to Rs.41,10,000/- is bad in law the same as business income amounting to Rs. and needs to be set aside

THE PUNJAB STATE FEDERATION OF COOPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETIES LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

2
Section 143(3)2
Capital Gains2
Long Term Capital Gains2

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 1308/CHANDI/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: the appeal is finally heard.

For Appellant: Shri Atul Goyal, C.A (Virtual Mode)For Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 57oSection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

239/- of the appellant as long term capital Chandigarh disallowing the claim of Rs. 14,95,610/- of gain and treating the same as business income the appellant as long term capital gain and treating amounting to Rs.41,10,000/- is bad in law the same as business income amounting to Rs. and needs to be set aside

DCIT, C-V, LUDHIANA vs. M/S HERO CYCLES LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 588/CHANDI/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 588/Chd/2018 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-13 The DCIT C-V, Ludhiana बनाम M/s Hero Cycles Ltd. Hero Nagar, G.T. Road Ludhiana स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAACH4073P अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 473/Chd/2018 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-13 M/s Hero Cycles Ltd. Hero Nagar, G.T. Road Ludhiana बनाम The ACIT C-V, Ludhiana स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAACH4073P

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, Shri Ashish Aggarwal &For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

gains is exempt from tax under section 10 of the Act is directed to be deleted on the basis of same reasoning and logic as adopted by the Honourable IT AT, Chandigarh in the case of the assessee company itself for the Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11 while deleting the identical addition in these years

M/S HERO CYCLES LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, C-V, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed and the\nappeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 473/CHANDI/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Sept 2025AY 2012-13
For Respondent: \nShri Ashwani Kumar, Shri Ashish Aggarwal &
Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

gains is exempt from tax under section 10 of the Act\nis directed to be deleted on the basis of same reasoning and logic as\nadopted by the Honourable IT AT, Chandigarh in the case of the\nassessee company itself for the Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10 and\n2010-11 while deleting the identical addition in these years

KANDI FRIENDS EDUCATIONAL TRUST,ROPAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 797/CHANDI/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

gainfully implied in their other activities also and therefore, payment of honorarium to these persons is not in accordance with law. To our mind, this cannot be a logic for denying the benefit to them. The intention of the Section is not as such. It is the assessee who has to manage its affairs and to decide what is necessary

KANDI FRIENDS EDUCATIONAL TRUST,ROPAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSION OF INCOME TAX, CL. 1, EXEMPTION, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 798/CHANDI/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

gainfully implied in their other activities also and therefore, payment of honorarium to these persons is not in accordance with law. To our mind, this cannot be a logic for denying the benefit to them. The intention of the Section is not as such. It is the assessee who has to manage its affairs and to decide what is necessary