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.

24 results for “capital gains”+ Section 583(4)(a)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai127Delhi108Karnataka103Agra62Cochin61Bangalore56Kolkata35Ahmedabad29Chandigarh24Pune18Hyderabad17Chennai12Jaipur10Indore4Rajkot3SC3Panaji3Visakhapatnam2Amritsar2Patna2Telangana2Rajasthan1Guwahati1Dehradun1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Lucknow1

Key Topics

Section 40A(3)30Deduction15Disallowance13Section 80I9Section 8O7Section 807Section 234B7Depreciation7Section 143(2)6Business Income

M/S ASHA TECHNOLOGIES,SIRMOUR vs. ADDL. CIT, SOLAN

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed as aforesaid in respect of impugned orders dt

ITA 388/CHANDI/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jul 2024AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate with Shri Aditya Sood, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sarabjeet Singh, CIT, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 253Section 80I

capital account and Rs. 11,00,000/- in the name of M/s. Asha Telecom Pvt. Ltd. as liabilities. But it did not furnish any information regarding sources of these credits and neither any confirmation from M/s. Asha Telecom Pvt. Ltd. was furnished. Similarly, Para 8 of the questionnaire remained unanswered. Vide Para 9 of its reply, it was stated that

Showing 1–20 of 24 · Page 1 of 2

6
TDS6
Addition to Income6

M/S ASHA TECHNOLOGIES,KALA AMB vs. ITO, SIRMOUR

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed as aforesaid in respect of impugned orders dt

ITA 61/CHANDI/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate with Shri Aditya Sood, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sarabjeet Singh, CIT, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 253Section 80I

capital account and Rs. 11,00,000/- in the name of M/s. Asha Telecom Pvt. Ltd. as liabilities. But it did not furnish any information regarding sources of these credits and neither any confirmation from M/s. Asha Telecom Pvt. Ltd. was furnished. Similarly, Para 8 of the questionnaire remained unanswered. Vide Para 9 of its reply, it was stated that

ACIT, SANGRUR vs. M/S H.M.STEELS LTD, DIRBA

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1101/CHANDI/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh05 Nov 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआयकर अपील सं Ita No. 366/Chd/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. N.K.Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Chanderkanta, Sr.DR
Section 234BSection 80Section 80ISection 8O

gains for deduction u/s 80IC of the Act. The Ld. Counsel of the assessee has submitted that the profit earned on sale of bus is a capital receipt, hence, not liable for deduction u/s 80IC of the Act. However, he has further submitted that since the sale price is adjustable in block of asset as per section 32, hence, this

H.M. STEELS LTD.,SANGRUR vs. ACIT, SANGRUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 590/CHANDI/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh05 Nov 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआयकर अपील सं Ita No. 366/Chd/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. N.K.Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Chanderkanta, Sr.DR
Section 234BSection 80Section 80ISection 8O

gains for deduction u/s 80IC of the Act. The Ld. Counsel of the assessee has submitted that the profit earned on sale of bus is a capital receipt, hence, not liable for deduction u/s 80IC of the Act. However, he has further submitted that since the sale price is adjustable in block of asset as per section 32, hence, this

DCIT, SANGRUR vs. M/S H.M. STEEL LTD., SANGRUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 584/CHANDI/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh05 Nov 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआयकर अपील सं Ita No. 366/Chd/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. N.K.Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Chanderkanta, Sr.DR
Section 234BSection 80Section 80ISection 8O

gains for deduction u/s 80IC of the Act. The Ld. Counsel of the assessee has submitted that the profit earned on sale of bus is a capital receipt, hence, not liable for deduction u/s 80IC of the Act. However, he has further submitted that since the sale price is adjustable in block of asset as per section 32, hence, this

DCIT, SANGRUR vs. M/S H.M. STEEL LTD., SANGRUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 585/CHANDI/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh05 Nov 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआयकर अपील सं Ita No. 366/Chd/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. N.K.Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Chanderkanta, Sr.DR
Section 234BSection 80Section 80ISection 8O

gains for deduction u/s 80IC of the Act. The Ld. Counsel of the assessee has submitted that the profit earned on sale of bus is a capital receipt, hence, not liable for deduction u/s 80IC of the Act. However, he has further submitted that since the sale price is adjustable in block of asset as per section 32, hence, this

M/S H.M. STEEL LTD.,SANGRUR vs. ADDL. CIT, SANGRUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 366/CHANDI/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh05 Nov 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआयकर अपील सं Ita No. 366/Chd/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. N.K.Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Chanderkanta, Sr.DR
Section 234BSection 80Section 80ISection 8O

gains for deduction u/s 80IC of the Act. The Ld. Counsel of the assessee has submitted that the profit earned on sale of bus is a capital receipt, hence, not liable for deduction u/s 80IC of the Act. However, he has further submitted that since the sale price is adjustable in block of asset as per section 32, hence, this

DCIT, SANGRUR vs. M/S H.M. STEEL LTD., SANGRUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 583/CHANDI/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh05 Nov 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआयकर अपील सं Ita No. 366/Chd/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. N.K.Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Chanderkanta, Sr.DR
Section 234BSection 80Section 80ISection 8O

gains for deduction u/s 80IC of the Act. The Ld. Counsel of the assessee has submitted that the profit earned on sale of bus is a capital receipt, hence, not liable for deduction u/s 80IC of the Act. However, he has further submitted that since the sale price is adjustable in block of asset as per section 32, hence, this

H.M. STEELS LTD.,SANGRUR vs. ACIT, SANGRUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 589/CHANDI/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh05 Nov 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआयकर अपील सं Ita No. 366/Chd/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. N.K.Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Chanderkanta, Sr.DR
Section 234BSection 80Section 80ISection 8O

gains for deduction u/s 80IC of the Act. The Ld. Counsel of the assessee has submitted that the profit earned on sale of bus is a capital receipt, hence, not liable for deduction u/s 80IC of the Act. However, he has further submitted that since the sale price is adjustable in block of asset as per section 32, hence, this

ITO, WARD-6(1), MOHALI vs. QUARKCITY INDIA PVT. LTD., MOHALI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 258/CHANDI/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Feb 2025AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Vineet Thakral Advocate And Shri Raman Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR

583/-to Rs. 50,96,839." 5.2 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Chandigarh in appellant's own case has passed appeal order dated 01.01.2014 for AY 2007-08 and has held as under: The contention of the appellant, in fact, is correct as per the computation provided, which is reproduced below: Total Salary & Wages

ITO, WARD-6(1), MOHALI vs. QUARKCITY INDIA PVT. LTD., MOHALI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 265/CHANDI/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Vineet Thakral Advocate And Shri Raman Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR

583/-to Rs. 50,96,839." 5.2 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Chandigarh in appellant's own case has passed appeal order dated 01.01.2014 for AY 2007-08 and has held as under: The contention of the appellant, in fact, is correct as per the computation provided, which is reproduced below: Total Salary & Wages

ITO, WARD-6(1), MOHALI vs. QUARKCITY INDIA PVT. LTD., MOHALI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 266/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Vineet Thakral Advocate And Shri Raman Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR

583/-to Rs. 50,96,839." 5.2 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Chandigarh in appellant's own case has passed appeal order dated 01.01.2014 for AY 2007-08 and has held as under: The contention of the appellant, in fact, is correct as per the computation provided, which is reproduced below: Total Salary & Wages

ITO, WARD-6(1), MOHALI vs. QUARKCITY INDIA PVT. LTD., MPHALI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 259/CHANDI/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Feb 2025AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Vineet Thakral Advocate And Shri Raman Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR

583/-to Rs. 50,96,839." 5.2 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Chandigarh in appellant's own case has passed appeal order dated 01.01.2014 for AY 2007-08 and has held as under: The contention of the appellant, in fact, is correct as per the computation provided, which is reproduced below: Total Salary & Wages

ITO, WARD-6(1), MOHALI vs. QUARKCITY INDIA PVT. LTD., MOHALI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 263/CHANDI/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Vineet Thakral Advocate And Shri Raman Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR

583/-to Rs. 50,96,839." 5.2 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Chandigarh in appellant's own case has passed appeal order dated 01.01.2014 for AY 2007-08 and has held as under: The contention of the appellant, in fact, is correct as per the computation provided, which is reproduced below: Total Salary & Wages

ITO, WARD-6(1), MOHALI vs. QUARKCITY INDIA PVT. LTD., MOHALI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 264/CHANDI/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Vineet Thakral Advocate And Shri Raman Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR

583/-to Rs. 50,96,839." 5.2 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Chandigarh in appellant's own case has passed appeal order dated 01.01.2014 for AY 2007-08 and has held as under: The contention of the appellant, in fact, is correct as per the computation provided, which is reproduced below: Total Salary & Wages

ITO, WARD-6(1), MOHALI vs. QUARKCITY INDIA PVT. LTD., MPHALI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 260/CHANDI/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Vineet Thakral Advocate And Shri Raman Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR

583/-to Rs. 50,96,839." 5.2 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Chandigarh in appellant's own case has passed appeal order dated 01.01.2014 for AY 2007-08 and has held as under: The contention of the appellant, in fact, is correct as per the computation provided, which is reproduced below: Total Salary & Wages

ITO, WARD-6(1), MOHALI vs. QUARKCITY INDIA PVT. LTD., MPHALI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 262/CHANDI/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Vineet Thakral Advocate And Shri Raman Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR

583/-to Rs. 50,96,839." 5.2 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Chandigarh in appellant's own case has passed appeal order dated 01.01.2014 for AY 2007-08 and has held as under: The contention of the appellant, in fact, is correct as per the computation provided, which is reproduced below: Total Salary & Wages

ITO, WARD-6(1), MOHALI vs. QUARKCITY INDIA PVT. LTD., MPHALI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 261/CHANDI/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Vineet Thakral Advocate And Shri Raman Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR

583/-to Rs. 50,96,839." 5.2 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Chandigarh in appellant's own case has passed appeal order dated 01.01.2014 for AY 2007-08 and has held as under: The contention of the appellant, in fact, is correct as per the computation provided, which is reproduced below: Total Salary & Wages

SHRI MUNISH ARORA,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CC-II, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeals filed for Assessee are disposed off as under:

ITA 171/CHANDI/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 156/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 157/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 158/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 169/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 170/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 171/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Munish Arora, Vs. The Acit, बनाम Central Circle-Ii, 1136, Ist Floor, Chandigarh Sector 8-C, Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aexpa3762N अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.10.2024

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 40A(3)

gain on pre- payment of deferred VAT/sales tax on Net Present Value (NPV) basis as capital receipt, since assessment got abated, it was open for assessee to lodge a new claim in a proceeding under section 153A(1) which was not claimed in his regular return of income, thus, impugned order of AO rejecting such claim of assessee was unjustified

SHRI MUNISH ARORA,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CC-II, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeals filed for Assessee are disposed off as under:

ITA 170/CHANDI/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 156/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 157/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 158/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 169/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 170/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 171/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Munish Arora, Vs. The Acit, बनाम Central Circle-Ii, 1136, Ist Floor, Chandigarh Sector 8-C, Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aexpa3762N अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.10.2024

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 40A(3)

gain on pre- payment of deferred VAT/sales tax on Net Present Value (NPV) basis as capital receipt, since assessment got abated, it was open for assessee to lodge a new claim in a proceeding under section 153A(1) which was not claimed in his regular return of income, thus, impugned order of AO rejecting such claim of assessee was unjustified