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.

942 results for “capital gains”+ Section 133(6)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,275Delhi942Bangalore492Ahmedabad245Chennai245Jaipur241Kolkata238Karnataka125Indore111Pune107Hyderabad106Chandigarh105Surat77Cochin72Calcutta56Raipur54Lucknow37Nagpur36Guwahati36Cuttack30Amritsar30Visakhapatnam30Rajkot29Patna22Agra11Jodhpur9Ranchi7SC7Dehradun6Telangana6Allahabad3Rajasthan3Varanasi2Panaji2Jabalpur1Andhra Pradesh1Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)65Addition to Income65Section 6857Section 153A42Section 26328Section 14726Section 133(6)26Disallowance26Long Term Capital Gains25Section 148

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 942 · Page 1 of 48

...
22
Section 10(38)19
Deduction19
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

ACE CABS LIMITED,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), DELHI, C R BUILDING

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 443/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanace Cabs Limited, Vs. Acit, Circle 1 (2), 562, Silver Oak Lane, Delhi. M.G. Road, Ghitorni, Delhi – 110 030. (Pan : Aaica4494R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gaurav Jain, Advocate Ms. Bharti Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2024 Date Of Order : 04.10.2024 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), New Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short]/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Dated 12.12.2023 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Submitted An Application Under Rule 29 Of The Itat Rules For Admitting The Additional Evidences & The Contents Thereof Are Reproduced Below:-

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

133(6) of the Act. 13. It is pertinent to mention here that the assessee had also issued and It is pertinent to mention here that the assessee had also issued and It is pertinent to mention here that the assessee had also issued and allotted 899 SEED Compulsory Convertible Preference Shares (CCPS) with a face allotted 899 SEED Compulsory

KAPIL KUMAR AGARWAL,GURGAON vs. DCIT, GURGAON

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2630/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishikapil Kumar Agarwal, Vs. Dcit, C/O. Ipsaa House Anm & Circle-1(1), Associates, J021A, Mayfiled Gurgaoon Gardens, Sector-51, Gurgaon Pan: Aacpa2412L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Kaushik, AdvFor Respondent: Smt Sugandha Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 54Section 54F

6. The learned departmental representative vehemently supported the order of the lower authorities. 7. The brief facts of the case shows that assessee derived a long-term capital gain on sale of shares of Rs. 7985861/–. The assessee has claimed deduction under Section 54F stating that it has purchased an apartment by buyers agreement dated 20/3/2007 entered into with

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

6. Ground number two relates to the contention of the appellant against the disallowance of his claim made u/s 10 (38) of the IT act. The fact of the case is that the AO found that information was gathered by the Department that the scheme was hatched by various players to obtain/provide accommodation entries of bogus long-term capital gain

GOPAL SARAN DARBARI,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 1248/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Oct 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Goel, Sh. Saurabh Goel, CAsFor Respondent: Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 54

section 133(6) to unearth the truth. Since, the assessee has willfully and deliberately utilized the amount deposited under capital gain

GOPAL SARAN DARBARI,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 1249/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Goel, Sh. Saurabh Goel, CAsFor Respondent: Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 54

section 133(6) to unearth the truth. Since, the assessee has willfully and deliberately utilized the amount deposited under capital gain

PURAN ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-20(1), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 2087/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2014-15

Section 111ASection 143(3)Section 14A

capital gains as business income, without going into the facts of the relevant year and ignoring the CBDT’s circular. 3) That the CIT (Appeals)/AO has erred on facts and in law in increasing the disallowance u/s 14A by Rs 77,82,133, without factoring the assessee himself had disallowed Rs 24,38,508. 4) That both

NIKESH ARORA,GURGAON vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, GURGON

In the result, appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 1008/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: We Proceed To Deal With The Substantive Issues Arising

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 2

6 | P a g e AY: 2017-18 being more than 24 months, the gain derived has to be treated as long term capital gain. The Assessing Officer, however, did not accept assessee’s submission. He observed that the agreement dated 17.12.2014 is merely a draft agreement, hence, cannot be considered as final agreement. Thus, he observed that the assessee

PREM NATH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

ITA 1659/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri J.S. Reddy & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Anil Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, Senior DR
Section 50CSection 50C(1)Section 54Section 54E

section 54EC.” 6. Without prejudice the merits of the case, we are of the considered view that additional grounds now sought to be raised by the assessee, which are legal grounds, are necessary for complete adjudication of the controversy at hand. So, we hereby allow the application moved under Rule 11 of Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 by the assessee

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SHRI HARI INVESTMENT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the revenue for both the assessment years are dismissed

ITA 6062/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri SS Rana, CIT DR
Section 10

6 4 to 6610/– taxable at the rate of 30%. The partners contributed many of the stocks and shares as capital contribution in the firm. 7. For assessment year 2010 – 11, Assessee filed return on 28/7/2010 showing income of Rs. 7 863720/– with current year loss of Rs. 1 59123/–. As during the year the assessee has earned profit

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SHRI HARI INVESTMENT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the revenue for both the assessment years are dismissed

ITA 6063/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri SS Rana, CIT DR
Section 10

6 4 to 6610/– taxable at the rate of 30%. The partners contributed many of the stocks and shares as capital contribution in the firm. 7. For assessment year 2010 – 11, Assessee filed return on 28/7/2010 showing income of Rs. 7 863720/– with current year loss of Rs. 1 59123/–. As during the year the assessee has earned profit

SH. RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 5845/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 133(6)

133(6) to the above two brokers for filing the account summary on daily basis which is as under : ITA No. 5845/Del./2014 4 On the basis of above details, the AO issued show cause notice to the assessee to explain why the trading in shares should not be assessed under the head “income from business and profession” as income

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

section 133 (6) to the various companies who provided exit to the several persons. Many notices received back un-served or no reply was received. The learned AO further stated that many of the stockbrokers did not maintain proper Know Your Customer (KYC) data. Further, many of the beneficiaries of the long-term 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

section 133 (6) to the various companies who provided exit to the several persons. Many notices received back un-served or no reply was received. The learned AO further stated that many of the stockbrokers did not maintain proper Know Your Customer (KYC) data. Further, many of the beneficiaries of the long-term capital gain

GAURAV AGGARWAL,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 60 (5 ), NEW DELHI

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 1234/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishishri Gaurav Aggarwal, Income Tax Officer, Flat No. 12, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Ward 60 (5) Sheel Tara House, New Delhi. 4866/24,Ansari Road, Daryaganj New Delhi – 110 002. Pan : Agepa3001F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Takyar, Sr. D. R
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

6. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - XIX, New Delhi has erred both on the facts and in law confirming the addition made Ld. ITO which is not verified all the aspects and details filed by the assessee during the assessment proceeding. As vide letter dated 19.12.2017 submitted by the assessee genuineness of Long term Capital gain along

VANEET AGGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-14(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2607/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2015-16
Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 69ASection 69C

Capital Gain on sale of shares of M/s.\nHPC Biosciences Ltd. and claimed the exemption of Rs.41,80,283/-. By relying\nthe Investigation report of the Directorate of Investigation, Kolkata and the\nrelevant modus operandi adopted by various beneficiaries by opting exemption\nu/s 10(38) of the Act, the Ld. AO observed that his M/s. HPC Biosciences Ltd. is\nalso

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

133(6) of the Act and that from trade data obtained from BSE, it had been observed that some companies controlled by Sh. Raj Kumar Kedia such as M/s Esha Securities Ltd., Sh. Gauri Buildtech Pvt. Ltd., Shrigauri Realtors Pvt. Ltd., M/s Shrim Investment Solutions Pvt. Ltd., M/s Krishna Securities Ltd. and even Sh. Raj Kumar Kedia, had purchased shares

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

133(6) of the Act and that from trade data obtained from BSE, it had been observed that some companies controlled by Sh. Raj Kumar Kedia such as M/s Esha Securities Ltd., Sh. Gauri Buildtech Pvt. Ltd., Shrigauri Realtors Pvt. Ltd., M/s Shrim Investment Solutions Pvt. Ltd., M/s Krishna Securities Ltd. and even Sh. Raj Kumar Kedia, had purchased shares

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

133(6) of the Act and that from trade data obtained from BSE, it had been observed that some companies controlled by Sh. Raj Kumar Kedia such as M/s Esha Securities Ltd., Sh. Gauri Buildtech Pvt. Ltd., Shrigauri Realtors Pvt. Ltd., M/s Shrim Investment Solutions Pvt. Ltd., M/s Krishna Securities Ltd. and even Sh. Raj Kumar Kedia, had purchased shares

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

133(6) of the Act and that from trade data obtained from BSE, it had been observed that some companies controlled by Sh. Raj Kumar Kedia such as M/s Esha Securities Ltd., Sh. Gauri Buildtech Pvt. Ltd., Shrigauri Realtors Pvt. Ltd., M/s Shrim Investment Solutions Pvt. Ltd., M/s Krishna Securities Ltd. and even Sh. Raj Kumar Kedia, had purchased shares