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.

911 results for “capital gains”+ Search & Seizureclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,174Delhi911Jaipur383Hyderabad340Bangalore257Chennai220Pune171Ahmedabad144Kolkata114Karnataka112Cochin99Chandigarh93Indore69Nagpur66Visakhapatnam64Surat43Guwahati41Cuttack38Rajkot38Lucknow29Raipur21Ranchi20Dehradun15Jodhpur14Amritsar14Agra12Telangana10Patna9SC5Jabalpur3Calcutta3Orissa2Allahabad2Kerala1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 153A132Addition to Income64Section 153C51Section 143(3)46Section 13237Search & Seizure32Section 69A23Section 143(2)20Section 6819Long Term Capital Gains

SUMAN AGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI

ITA 5288/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2021AY 2011-12
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

search & seizure and survey operations under section 132/133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) were conducted on 8.7.2015 and subsequent dates in the case of assessee along with the other case of the M/s KR Pulp & Papers Ltd Group at various residential and business premises. In response to notice issued u/s 153A of the Income

GOPAL AGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI

ITA 5853/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2021AY 2011-12
Section 10(38)

Showing 1–20 of 911 · Page 1 of 46

...
19
Capital Gains17
Section 10(38)16
Section 132
Section 139(1)
Section 153A

search & seizure and survey operations under section 132/133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) were conducted on 8.7.2015 and subsequent dates in the case of assessee along with the other case of the M/s KR Pulp & Papers Ltd Group at various residential and business premises. In response to notice issued u/s 153A of the Income

RAJ GOPAL AGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI

ITA 5278/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2021AY 2011-12
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

search & seizure and survey operations under section 132/133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) were conducted on 8.7.2015 and subsequent dates in the case of assessee along with the other case of the M/s KR Pulp & Papers Ltd Group at various residential and business premises. In response to notice issued u/s 153A of the Income

KUMAR AGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19 , NEW DELHI

ITA 5280/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2021AY 2011-12
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

search & seizure and survey operations under section 132/133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) were conducted on 8.7.2015 and subsequent dates in the case of assessee along with the other case of the M/s KR Pulp & Papers Ltd Group at various residential and business premises. In response to notice issued u/s 153A of the Income

MAMTA AGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-19, NEW DELHI

ITA 5284/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2021AY 2011-12
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

search & seizure and survey operations under section 132/133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) were conducted on 8.7.2015 and subsequent dates in the case of assessee along with the other case of the M/s KR Pulp & Papers Ltd Group at various residential and business premises. In response to notice issued u/s 153A of the Income

SURESH KUMAR AGGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 8703/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jun 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishia Y 2011-12 Appellant Respondent Shri Suresh Kumar Agarwal The Assistant Commissioner Of 154, Deepali Enclave Vs. Income Tax Pitampura Central Circle -25 New Delhi New Delhi Pan :- Abvpk1318H ( Appellant ) ( Respondent ) Date Of Hearing 17-06-2020 Date Of Order 29.06.2020 Present For Assessee Shri Gautam Jain , Advocate Present For Income Tax Department :- Shri Saras Kumar Senior Departmental Representative O R D E R

Section 143Section 148Section 68

gains or short- term capital loss by various beneficiaries. Extensive investigation including search and seizure, survey action on entry providers

RITU SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 3, NEW DELHI

ITA 1476/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Sh. K. N. Charyita No. 1412/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 1413/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 1414/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Sh. Brij Bhushan Singal, Vs Acit, W-29, Greater Kailash, Part-Ii, Central Circle-3, New Delhi-110048 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aefps6298M

For Appellant: Sh. S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

Capital Gain was nothing but a form of accommodation entry obtained with the help of known accommodation entry operator, Sh. R. K. Kedia. He further observed that on the basis of above information a search& seizure

NEERAJ SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 3, NEW DELHI

ITA 1485/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Sh. K. N. Charyita No. 1412/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 1413/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 1414/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Sh. Brij Bhushan Singal, Vs Acit, W-29, Greater Kailash, Part-Ii, Central Circle-3, New Delhi-110048 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aefps6298M

For Appellant: Sh. S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

Capital Gain was nothing but a form of accommodation entry obtained with the help of known accommodation entry operator, Sh. R. K. Kedia. He further observed that on the basis of above information a search& seizure

BRIJ BHUSHAN SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 3, NEW DELHI

ITA 1412/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Sh. K. N. Charyita No. 1412/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 1413/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 1414/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Sh. Brij Bhushan Singal, Vs Acit, W-29, Greater Kailash, Part-Ii, Central Circle-3, New Delhi-110048 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aefps6298M

For Appellant: Sh. S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

Capital Gain was nothing but a form of accommodation entry obtained with the help of known accommodation entry operator, Sh. R. K. Kedia. He further observed that on the basis of above information a search& seizure

UMA SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRL CIRCLE-3, NEW DELHI

ITA 1482/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Sh. K. N. Charyita No. 1412/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 1413/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 1414/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Sh. Brij Bhushan Singal, Vs Acit, W-29, Greater Kailash, Part-Ii, Central Circle-3, New Delhi-110048 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aefps6298M

For Appellant: Sh. S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

Capital Gain was nothing but a form of accommodation entry obtained with the help of known accommodation entry operator, Sh. R. K. Kedia. He further observed that on the basis of above information a search& seizure

BRIJ BHUSHAN SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 3, NEW DELHI

ITA 1414/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Sh. K. N. Charyita No. 1412/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 1413/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 1414/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Sh. Brij Bhushan Singal, Vs Acit, W-29, Greater Kailash, Part-Ii, Central Circle-3, New Delhi-110048 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aefps6298M

For Appellant: Sh. S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

Capital Gain was nothing but a form of accommodation entry obtained with the help of known accommodation entry operator, Sh. R. K. Kedia. He further observed that on the basis of above information a search& seizure

BRIJ BHUSHAN SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 3, NEW DELHI

ITA 1413/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Sh. K. N. Charyita No. 1412/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 1413/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 1414/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Sh. Brij Bhushan Singal, Vs Acit, W-29, Greater Kailash, Part-Ii, Central Circle-3, New Delhi-110048 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aefps6298M

For Appellant: Sh. S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

Capital Gain was nothing but a form of accommodation entry obtained with the help of known accommodation entry operator, Sh. R. K. Kedia. He further observed that on the basis of above information a search& seizure

B.R. ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4966/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 10Section 132Section 153ASection 2(22)Section 234ASection 68

search and seizure operation in the case of entry operator Aseem Kumar Gupta & Group of which assessee was also one of beneficiary. In his statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act of Sh. I.C. Jindal on 26/27.03.2010 was confronted to Sh. Aseem Kumar Gupta. Sh. Aseem Kumar Gupta has admitted to have arranged entries of bogus capital gain

B.R. ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4964/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 10Section 132Section 153ASection 2(22)Section 234ASection 68

search and seizure operation in the case of entry operator Aseem Kumar Gupta & Group of which assessee was also one of beneficiary. In his statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act of Sh. I.C. Jindal on 26/27.03.2010 was confronted to Sh. Aseem Kumar Gupta. Sh. Aseem Kumar Gupta has admitted to have arranged entries of bogus capital gain

B.R. ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4965/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 10Section 132Section 153ASection 2(22)Section 234ASection 68

search and seizure operation in the case of entry operator Aseem Kumar Gupta & Group of which assessee was also one of beneficiary. In his statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act of Sh. I.C. Jindal on 26/27.03.2010 was confronted to Sh. Aseem Kumar Gupta. Sh. Aseem Kumar Gupta has admitted to have arranged entries of bogus capital gain

RITU SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 3, NEW DELHI

ITA 1481/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2018AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S S Rana CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 143Section 153ASection 250Section 68

Capital Gains on sheer presumptive basis. (3) That the order dated 29-12-2017 passed u/s 250 of the Act by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) 23, New Delhi is against law and facts on the file in as much as he was not justified to uphold the action of the Assessing Officer in making an addition

UMA SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRL CIRCLE-3, NEW DELHI

ITA 1484/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S S Rana CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 143Section 153ASection 250Section 68

Capital Gains on sheer presumptive basis. (3) That the order dated 29-12-2017 passed u/s 250 of the Act by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) 23, New Delhi is against law and facts on the file in as much as he was not justified to uphold the action of the Assessing Officer in making an addition

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GDA FINVEST TRADE (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 2019/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. VED JAIN, ADVFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. SAROHA, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143ASection 153ASection 2

Capital Gains’ and not under the head ‘Income from Business income’ whereas the amount of addition was Rs. 95,92,653/-. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, amend an\y / all the grounds of appeal before or during the course of hearing of the appeal.” 3. The grounds raised in the Assessee’s Cross Objection read as under

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ASHA KEDAR NATH GUPTA

ITA/948/2008HC Delhi31 Aug 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 132Section 260A

capital gains. (c). All the witnesses whose statements were recorded by the Assessing Officer in the course of the search proceedings were retracted for valid reasons and, therefore, no reliance can be placed on them. (d). The findings recorded by the Tribunal in para 2.15 of its order in the case of Kedarnath Gupta, particularly the finding that the vendors

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ROHIT KEDAR NATH GUPTA

ITA/707/2008HC Delhi31 Aug 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 132Section 260A

capital gains. (c). All the witnesses whose statements were recorded by the Assessing Officer in the course of the search proceedings were retracted for valid reasons and, therefore, no reliance can be placed on them. (d). The findings recorded by the Tribunal in para 2.15 of its order in the case of Kedarnath Gupta, particularly the finding that the vendors