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.

219 results for “disallowance”+ Capital Gainsclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai5,860Delhi3,746Chennai1,790Bangalore1,460Kolkata1,373Ahmedabad760Jaipur480Hyderabad479Pune374Indore234Chandigarh219Surat195Raipur184Karnataka181Cochin164Nagpur114Lucknow108Panaji99Rajkot97Agra90Cuttack78Visakhapatnam77Calcutta68SC49Amritsar46Guwahati45Telangana41Dehradun31Jodhpur25Jabalpur24Ranchi22Patna21Kerala15Varanasi13Allahabad12Punjab & Haryana7Orissa7Rajasthan3ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Himachal Pradesh1Gauhati1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1

Key Topics

Section 26368Addition to Income55Section 143(3)44Deduction28Disallowance24Section 6822Long Term Capital Gains22Section 143(2)21Section 80P21

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)

capital gain on sale of residential house. 2. The PCIT has wrongly enhanced the scope of scrutiny assessment while faming order under section 263 of Income Tax Act. 3. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income declaring total income of Rs. 69,52,590/-. Subsequently, return of income was selected for complete

Showing 1–20 of 219 · Page 1 of 11

...
Exemption20
Section 14819
Section 10(38)19

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 without bringing any material on record against the documents/findings discovered during the search proceedings by the Directorate of Investigation, Ahmadabad, Mumbai, Delhi, Chandigarh etc. 64. Generally, the principles of natural justice demands affording opportunity of cross-examination of the documentary evidence as well as the statements recorded of the parties if used against the assessee. But such principles

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 without bringing any material on record against the documents/findings discovered during the search proceedings by the Directorate of Investigation, Ahmadabad, Mumbai, Delhi, Chandigarh etc. 64. Generally, the principles of natural justice demands affording opportunity of cross-examination of the documentary evidence as well as the statements recorded of the parties if used against the assessee. But such principles

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 without bringing any material on record against the documents/findings discovered during the search proceedings by the Directorate of Investigation, Ahmadabad, Mumbai, Delhi, Chandigarh etc. 64. Generally, the principles of natural justice demands affording opportunity of cross-examination of the documentary evidence as well as the statements recorded of the parties if used against the assessee. But such principles

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 without bringing any material on record against the documents/findings discovered during the search proceedings by the Directorate of Investigation, Ahmadabad, Mumbai, Delhi, Chandigarh etc. 64. Generally, the principles of natural justice demands affording opportunity of cross-examination of the documentary evidence as well as the statements recorded of the parties if used against the assessee. But such principles

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 without bringing any material on record against the documents/findings discovered during the search proceedings by the Directorate of Investigation, Ahmadabad, Mumbai, Delhi, Chandigarh etc. 64. Generally, the principles of natural justice demands affording opportunity of cross-examination of the documentary evidence as well as the statements recorded of the parties if used against the assessee. But such principles

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

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 without bringing any material on record against the documents/findings discovered during the search proceedings by the Directorate of Investigation, Ahmadabad, Mumbai, Delhi, Chandigarh etc. 64. Generally, the principles of natural justice demands affording opportunity of cross-examination of the documentary evidence as well as the statements recorded of the parties if used against the assessee. But such principles

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 without bringing any material on record against the documents/findings discovered during the search proceedings by the Directorate of Investigation, Ahmadabad, Mumbai, Delhi, Chandigarh etc. 64. Generally, the principles of natural justice demands affording opportunity of cross-examination of the documentary evidence as well as the statements recorded of the parties if used against the assessee. But such principles

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 without bringing any material on record against the documents/findings discovered during the search proceedings by the Directorate of Investigation, Ahmadabad, Mumbai, Delhi, Chandigarh etc. 64. Generally, the principles of natural justice demands affording opportunity of cross-examination of the documentary evidence as well as the statements recorded of the parties if used against the assessee. But such principles

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 without bringing any material on record against the documents/findings discovered during the search proceedings by the Directorate of Investigation, Ahmadabad, Mumbai, Delhi, Chandigarh etc. 64. Generally, the principles of natural justice demands affording opportunity of cross-examination of the documentary evidence as well as the statements recorded of the parties if used against the assessee. But such principles

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

gains the Assessing Officer himself\ngave credit to the assessee for indexed cost of acquisition to the extent of Rs.\n11,67,821 taking the purchase price at Rs.11,00,000. Further, we find that the\nassessee had sold shares through MTL shares and Stock Brokers Limited as is noted\nby the Assessing Officer in reply to question

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 Gain claimed by it was genuine. 6.11 In the present case, I find that the appellant has failed to discharge its burden of proof and the AO, on the other hand, has proved that the claim of the appellant was not genuine. It has also been argued by the Ld. AR that no opportunity was provided to cross examine

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 Gain claimed by it was genuine. 6.11 In the present case, I find that the appellant has failed to discharge its burden of proof and the AO, on the other hand, has proved that the claim of the appellant was not genuine. It has also been argued by the Ld. AR that no opportunity was provided to cross examine

S.SURJIT SINGH,LUDHIANA vs. PR.CIT-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 118/CHANDI/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt.Diva Singh & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sarabjeet Singh, CIT, DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 54

capital gains account scheme, could be and was to be examined in subsequent years when so utilized and addition on account of disallowance

SAHIBZADA TIMBER AND PLY PRIVATE LIMITED ,MOHALI vs. DCIT, ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 699/CHANDI/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Feb 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 699/Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2019-20 M/s Sahibzada Timber & Ply Private Limited B41-42, Phase-3, Indl. Aera, SAS Nagar Mohali, Punjab बनाम The DCIT Central Circle-2 Chandigarh स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAQCS2239G अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Mohit Dhiman, C.A राजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue by : Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr. DR Shri Dharam Vir, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of He

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Dhiman, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 250(6)Section 50C

capital gains. In view of the above facts and discussion, it was held by the ld CIT(A) that disallowance

AARTI SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 217/CHANDI/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A and Ms. Deepali Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 250(6)Section 68Section 69C

capital gain is not allowable; iv. Failure of the appellant to discharge his onus: The appellant has not been able to prove the unusual rise and fall of share prices to be natural and based on the market forces. It is evident that such share transactions were closed circuit transactions and clearly a structured one; v. Ignorance of the appellant

SANJAY SINGAL (HUF),NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH , CHANDIGARH

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 221/CHANDI/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A and Ms. Deepali Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 250(6)Section 68Section 69C

capital gain is not allowable; iv. Failure of the appellant to discharge his onus: The appellant has not been able to prove the unusual rise and fall of share prices to be natural and based on the market forces. It is evident that such share transactions were closed circuit transactions and clearly a structured one; v. Ignorance of the appellant

AARTI SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 218/CHANDI/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A and Ms. Deepali Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 250(6)Section 68Section 69C

capital gain is not allowable; iv. Failure of the appellant to discharge his onus: The appellant has not been able to prove the unusual rise and fall of share prices to be natural and based on the market forces. It is evident that such share transactions were closed circuit transactions and clearly a structured one; v. Ignorance of the appellant

ANIKET SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 219/CHANDI/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A and Ms. Deepali Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 250(6)Section 68Section 69C

capital gain is not allowable; iv. Failure of the appellant to discharge his onus: The appellant has not been able to prove the unusual rise and fall of share prices to be natural and based on the market forces. It is evident that such share transactions were closed circuit transactions and clearly a structured one; v. Ignorance of the appellant

SANJAY SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 220/CHANDI/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A and Ms. Deepali Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 250(6)Section 68Section 69C

capital gain is not allowable; iv. Failure of the appellant to discharge his onus: The appellant has not been able to prove the unusual rise and fall of share prices to be natural and based on the market forces. It is evident that such share transactions were closed circuit transactions and clearly a structured one; v. Ignorance of the appellant