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.

401 results for “capital gains”+ Section 131clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai623Delhi401Chennai177Bangalore159Jaipur158Ahmedabad129Kolkata95Cochin79Pune72Chandigarh68Hyderabad67Raipur59Nagpur57Indore56Surat34Rajkot33Visakhapatnam28Guwahati25Amritsar16Lucknow14Jodhpur9Dehradun8Varanasi5Cuttack3Jabalpur3Allahabad2Agra1Panaji1Ranchi1Patna1

Key Topics

Addition to Income34Section 69A22Section 143(3)20Section 6815Section 23(2)14Section 153A13Section 13213Section 69C12Section 26310Deduction

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. VIREET INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 938/DEL/2024[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumaracit, Circle 17 (1) Vs. Vireet Investments Pvt. Ltd., Delhi. 21D, Friends Colony West, New Delhi – 110 065. (Pan : Aaacv2033M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish Jain, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Sapna Bhatia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.09.2024 Date Of Order : 06.11.2024 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 28.12.2023 For The Assessment Year 2004-05. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2004-05 On 31.10.2004 Declaring Income Of Rs.34,80,69,911/-. The Same Was Processed Under Section 143 (1) Of The 2 Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’) On 28.12.2004. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notices U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act Were Issued & Served On The Assessee. In Response, Ld. Ar For The Assessee Attended From Time To Time & Submitted Relevant Information As Called For. 3. The Assessee Was Incorporated On 03.10.1983 With The Main Objects, As Per Memorandum Of Association, To Acquire & Hold Shares, Stocks, Debentures, Debenture Stocks, Bonds, Obligations & Securities Issued Or Guaranteed By Any Company Constituted Or Carried On Business In The Republic Of India. After Considering The Submissions Of The Assessee, The Assessing Officer Proceeded To Make The Following Additions In The Assessment Completed U/S 143 (3) Of The Act :-

For Appellant: Shri Manish Jain, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT DR
Section 143

Showing 1–20 of 401 · Page 1 of 21

...
9
Search & Seizure8
House Property7
Section 143(2)
Section 14A
Section 48
Section 80G

section 48 of the Act. Therefore we are inclined to decide the issue of claim of administration expenses in favour of the revenue. Ultimately, the assessee may get the benefit of claim of these 12 expenses as business expenditure under the head business income. As such there is no impact for the same in this AY. 14. With regard

SANGEETA DEVI JHUNJHUNWALA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-70(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 747/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv SaxenaFor Respondent: Shri Amit Shukla, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 69C

capital gain of Rs. 1,17,14,346/- on sale of shares of M/s. HPC Biosciences Limited which the assessee claimed as exempt under section 10(38) of the Act. She had purchased 20,000 shares on 03.01.2013 at the rate Rs. 5/- per share for Rs. 1,00,000/- which she sold during the previous year relevant

SACHIN KANODIA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 42(2), NEW DELHI

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 9504/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 142(2)Section 143(2)Section 2Section 68Section 69C

capital gain. Surrounding circumstances differ from the normal share market transactions in which they are ordinarily carried out. Taking all the steps together, final conclusion does not accord with the human probabilities. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Durga Prasad More held as under: "It is a story that does not accord with human probabilities

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 05 , DELHI vs. DEEPAK KOTHARI , KANPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1834/DEL/2021[20017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2025

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 49(4)Section 56(2)(vii)

capital gain in section 48 of Income Tax Act. Moreover, income earned by the appellant on the amount received in December, 2007 has been declared by the appellant in respective years and tax has been paid thereon. 4.1.15 Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P.Vargehse vs ITO 131

DEEPAK KATHARI,KANPUR vs. ACIT, CC-5, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1205/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 49(4)Section 56(2)(vii)

capital gain in section 48 of Income Tax Act. Moreover, income earned by the appellant on the amount received in December, 2007 has been declared by the appellant in respective years and tax has been paid thereon. 4.1.15 Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P.Vargehse vs ITO 131

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 901/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Spl. Counsel for the Department
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 32Section 35Section 43B

Capital Gain/Short Term Capital Loss or any other sham transactions. " Similarly, the clarification for unlisted shares states: "It is, however, clarified that the above would not be necessarily applied in the situation where: (i) the genuineness of the transaction in unlisted shares itself is questionable; or (ii) the transfer of unlisted shares is related to an issue pertaining to lifting

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1024/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Spl. Counsel for the Department
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 32Section 35Section 43B

Capital Gain/Short Term Capital Loss or any other sham transactions. " Similarly, the clarification for unlisted shares states: "It is, however, clarified that the above would not be necessarily applied in the situation where: (i) the genuineness of the transaction in unlisted shares itself is questionable; or (ii) the transfer of unlisted shares is related to an issue pertaining to lifting

RAJ KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-58(4), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3092/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Sapra, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 46ASection 48Section 54

131, Sector 105 on 06/02/2017 for a total consideration of Rs.1,60,00,000/-. Appellant assessee had filed his I.T. Return on 10/08/2017 declaring income of Rs.10,90,520/-. Thereafter, appellant assessee purchased a residential apartment No. G-249, 1st Floor Preet Vihar for Rs.94,50,000/- (including stamp duty of Rs.4,50,000/-) on 13/10/2017 in the name

ADITYA SARAF,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-17(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 7812/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2014-15 Aditya Saraf Vs. Ito, Ward-17(4) B-45, Inder Puri, New Delhi. New Delhi - 110 012 Pan Awwps1249K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 131(1)Section 143(1)Section 68Section 69C

capital gain (“LTCG”) of Rs. 65,65,909/- which he claimed exempt under section 10(38) of the Act. According to the Ld. AO, at the last stage of assessment proceeding i.e. on 16.12.2016, the assessee furnished the details of the transactions of purchase and sale of the shares of M/s. Dhanleela Investment Ltd. resulting in LTCG

SANJEEV AGRAWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CC-15, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee areallowed

ITA 1518/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice-& Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain & Ms. Monika Aggarwal, AdvsFor Respondent: Shri Ramdhan Meena, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)

section 112A, inserted by Finance Act, 2018, w.e.f. 01.04.2019. 6.6. He further elucidated that assessee is a habitual investor having portfolio of investment in shares and has earned capital gain both in preceding and succeeding years. Ld. Counsel referred to the details of investment and capital gain in preceding and succeeding years which is extracted below

SANJEEV AGRAWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CC-15, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee areallowed

ITA 1519/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice-& Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain & Ms. Monika Aggarwal, AdvsFor Respondent: Shri Ramdhan Meena, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)

section 112A, inserted by Finance Act, 2018, w.e.f. 01.04.2019. 6.6. He further elucidated that assessee is a habitual investor having portfolio of investment in shares and has earned capital gain both in preceding and succeeding years. Ld. Counsel referred to the details of investment and capital gain in preceding and succeeding years which is extracted below

DCIT, CIRCLE- 4(1), NEW DELHI vs. KANWAL MOHAN SINGH SEHGAL, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 500/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Khurana, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR
Section 131(1)(d)Section 24Section 43Section 48Section 54

capital gain. Accordingly, the Ld. AO did not allow the impugned interest as indexed cost of acquisition. 5. Further, the Ld. AO negatived the claim of the assessee for deduction of Rs. 1,70,00,000/- under section 54 of the Act. He found that the assesee purchased agricultural land measuring 87120 sq. ft. From M/s. Banox Exim

ANIL BHARDWAJ,ZAMBIA vs. DCIT-ACIT-INT-TAX GURGAON, GURGAON

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1250/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 1250/Del/2024 (A.Y 2020-21) Anil Bhardwaj Dcit/Acit 5994, Benakale Road, P. O Vs. International Tax, Box No. 31776, Northmead, Office Of Acit-Dcit Int- Near Rhodes Park School, Tax, Gurgaon Lusaka-10101, Zambia, Ny (Respondent) Pan No. Anlpb2321F (Appellant)

For Appellant: Sh. Shailesh Kumar, CA
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 54Section 54F

Section 144C(13) of the Act dated 27/04/2023 by making 4 Anil Bhardwaj Zambia addition of Rs. 20,10,008/- as short term capital gain and further disallowed Rs. 80,14,041/- u/s 54 of the Act being 50% wife’s shares in the new house property. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C

ACIT CIRCLE-26(1), NEW DELHI vs. RAHUL NATH, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 7008/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahay

Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54F

capital gains. In terms of the above, we find no infirmity in the order of learned CIT(A) allowing the deduction under Section 54F of the Act and, we confirm the same. This issue of Revenue's appeal is dismissed. 7. The only issue in the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.7409/Del/2019 is as regards the order of learned

RAHUL NATH,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-26(1), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 7409/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Shri Saksham Garg and Ms. Ragini Handa, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54F

capital gains. In terms of the above, we find no infirmity in the order of learned CIT(A) allowing the deduction under Section 54F of the Act and, we confirm the same. This issue of Revenue's appeal is dismissed. 7. The only issue in the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.7409/Del/2019 is as regards the order of learned

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S U.K. PAINTS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of Revenue for A

ITA 4115/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaacit Vs. M/S. U. K. Paints (India) Pvt. Central Circle – 10 Ltd., 19, Dda Commercial New Delhi Complex, Kailash Colony Extn., Zamrudpur, New Delhi - 48 Pan No. Aaacu 0057 C (Appellant) (Respondent) & Co No. 244/Del/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.4115/Del/2013) (For Assessment Year : 2008-09) M/S. U. K. Paints (India) Vs. Acit Pvt. Ltd., 19, Dda Central Circle – 10 Commercial Complex, New Delhi Kailash Colony Extn., Zamrudpur, New Delhi-48 Pan No. Aaacu 0057 C (Appellant) (Respondent) & Acit Vs. U. K. Paints (India) Pvt. Ltd. Circle – 27(1) 19, Dda Commercial New Delhi Complex, Kailash Colony Extn., Zamrudpur, New Delhi-48 Pan No. Aaacu 0057 C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80I

capital 13 gains with artificial reference to section 55(2)(a) (deemed NIL Cost). This is supported by Supreme Court in Vodafone’s case 341 ITR Page 1 where it is interalia observed as under: “..As a general rule, in a case where a transaction involves transfer of shares lock, stock and barrel, such a transaction cannot be broken

ACIT, CIRCLE- 27(1), NEW DELHI vs. U K PAINTS INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of Revenue for A

ITA 764/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaacit Vs. M/S. U. K. Paints (India) Pvt. Central Circle – 10 Ltd., 19, Dda Commercial New Delhi Complex, Kailash Colony Extn., Zamrudpur, New Delhi - 48 Pan No. Aaacu 0057 C (Appellant) (Respondent) & Co No. 244/Del/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.4115/Del/2013) (For Assessment Year : 2008-09) M/S. U. K. Paints (India) Vs. Acit Pvt. Ltd., 19, Dda Central Circle – 10 Commercial Complex, New Delhi Kailash Colony Extn., Zamrudpur, New Delhi-48 Pan No. Aaacu 0057 C (Appellant) (Respondent) & Acit Vs. U. K. Paints (India) Pvt. Ltd. Circle – 27(1) 19, Dda Commercial New Delhi Complex, Kailash Colony Extn., Zamrudpur, New Delhi-48 Pan No. Aaacu 0057 C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80I

capital 13 gains with artificial reference to section 55(2)(a) (deemed NIL Cost). This is supported by Supreme Court in Vodafone’s case 341 ITR Page 1 where it is interalia observed as under: “..As a general rule, in a case where a transaction involves transfer of shares lock, stock and barrel, such a transaction cannot be broken

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-15, DELHI vs. SANJEEV AGRAWAL HUF, DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2035/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 69C

Capital Gain out of these purported share sale receipts during the financial year 2015-16 (A.Y. 2016-17) in his computation of total income (taxable at the rate of 60% as provided ws 115BBE). This would resultant of addition of Rs. 3.03.05.713/- in the total income of the assessee." Lastly, in para 8 while arriving at the total assessed income

BRANDIX MAURITIUS HOLDINGS LIMITED,MAURITIUS vs. DCIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE-1(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1542/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Kanchun Kaushal, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Anand, CIT- DR
Section 147Section 2(24)Section 234ASection 234BSection 27iSection 46ASection 47

capital gains under the provisions of the Act. The aforesaid grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other, and the grounds of appeal raised along with the captioned appeal.” 4. We have carefully perused the additional grounds of appeal raised by the assessee mentioned hereinabove. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Corporation

YOGESH PATEL,USA vs. DCIT CIRCLE INT TAXATION 2(2)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes with consequences to follow as directed above

ITA 2065/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2020-21 Yogesh Patel, Vs Dcit, 37319, Fowler Street New Ark Circle Int. Taxation 2(2)(2), California, New Delhi. Usa 94560. Pan: Arppp4747H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Bhupendra Shah, Ca Revenue By : Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 23.06.2023 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’), By The Dcit, Circle International Taxation 2(2)(2), New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao), For Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Applicant Is Non-Resident Indian Settled In Usa & Is Us Tax Resident. During The Previous Year Relevant To The Assessment Year Under Reference, The Applicant Sold Ancestral Land Bearing S No14 Hissa, No 7 Pt, Village Goregaon, Tal Borivli, Mumbai Suburban Dist On December 11, 2019 & Disclosed Long Term Capital Gains Computed As Under:- Amt In Rs Sale Consideration - 18,56,87,500 Less: Deduction U/S 48 - 13,56,87,500 Net Sale Consideration (I) 5,00,00,000 Acquisition Cost Fair Market Value On 01-04-2001 Rs 10,400/- X 3647.80 Sq M 3,79,37,120 Less: 60% Reduction In Fmv Due To Encroachment 2,27,62,272 1,51,74,848 Indexed Cost 1,51,74,848 X [289/100] 4,38,55,311 Cost Of Acquisition (Ii) 4,38,55,311 Long Term Capital Gains: (I) - (Ii) 61,44,689

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 48

section 35 of Evidence Act and ratio of various case laws of Supreme Court cited. 3. In the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO Int. Tax, Delhi erred in making the High Pitched addition of alleged unverifiable long term capital gain of Rs 13,56,87,500/- in respect of property sold during