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.

369 results for “capital gains”+ Section 206clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai474Delhi369Chennai159Jaipur130Ahmedabad128Bangalore123Karnataka110Kolkata78Chandigarh62Calcutta51Hyderabad51Raipur33Pune24Rajkot22Cochin22Indore20Nagpur17Guwahati16Surat14Lucknow12Visakhapatnam12Agra9Telangana8SC6Varanasi6Amritsar5Ranchi5Cuttack4Rajasthan3Jodhpur3Allahabad1Andhra Pradesh1Panaji1

Key Topics

Addition to Income69Section 143(3)52Disallowance43Deduction33Section 26327Section 54F24Section 32(1)(ii)24Section 11520Section 14A19Section 147

NEELU ANALJIT SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-9, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed with above directions

ITA 2172/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishimrs. Neelu Analjit Singh, Vs. The Addl. Commissioner Of 15, Dr. Apj Abdul Kalam Road, Income Tax , New Delhi Special Range-9, Pan: Aatps06882D New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Zoheb Hussain, Senior
Section 2Section 45

section 56 is not applicable to items covered in part A to E in chapter 4 of the Act and as such excludes income in the nature of „capital gains‟ covered in part E of Chapter 4. Mrs. Neelu Analjit Singh, Vs The Additional CIT , New Delhi 19. That, without prejudice, the CIT(A) also failed to appreciate/failed to consider

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

Showing 1–20 of 369 · Page 1 of 19

...
17
Section 6817
Depreciation17

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

capital gain. The gain is accordingly to be assessed as undisclosed credit u/s 68. In view of the facts as discussed above, I am of the considered view that the AO was justified to disallow the claim of the appellant u/s 10 (38) of the IT act.” 30. In the above circumstances, it is to be seen whether the assessee

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

gain of Rs.6,90,68,982/- as business income. 9.3 That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in holding that investment in units of mutual funds and shares were made as a systematic business activity, without appreciating that such investments were made on capital account and not as “stock-in-trade”. 9.4 That the assessing officer erred

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

gain of Rs.6,90,68,982/- as business income. 9.3 That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in holding that investment in units of mutual funds and shares were made as a systematic business activity, without appreciating that such investments were made on capital account and not as “stock-in-trade”. 9.4 That the assessing officer erred

ANALJIT SINGH,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 16(2), DELHI

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

ITA 4737/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Dec 2017AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P.Kant

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 50D

capital gains” in his return of income, for assessment year 2010-11, which was accepted as such by the Revenue vide intimation under section 143(1) of the Act. In the previous year ending on 31.03.2013, SBPL offered ‘rights shares’ which was subscribed by both, AS and CGP, being existing shareholders, in full, i.e., in the ratio of their existing

SMT. HARMINDER KAUR,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2656/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing]

Section 139(4)Section 148Section 54

capital gain. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent relies upon a Division Bench judgment of Karnataka High Court in Fathima Bai vs. ITO (2009) 32 DTR (Kar) 243 where in somewhat similar circumstances, it has been held that time-limit for deposit under scheme or utilisation can be made before the due date for filing

SNEH GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-32(1), DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed on both counts on merit as well as jurisdictional issue raised by the assessee in the additional ground of appeal

ITA 3928/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 54F

section 54F of the Act. Further, Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition in impugned order dated 09.08.2024. Hence the present appeal. The case of the assessee is that she sold shares on 20.12.2012 and deposited capital gain in bank account under capital gain scheme and further she started construction of a residential property. For this purpose, she purchased a residential

VINAY CHAUDHARY,PITAMPURA vs. ACIT INT TAX 1(2)(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

ITA 3115/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Apr 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: “Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 54Section 54FSection 69A

capital gain, the exemption u/s 54F is irrelevant to allow.” (Addition: Rs.4,14,06,000/-) 23. Regarding the above denial of deduction u/s 54F of the Act, the ld. AR in the written arguments submitted in para 26 to 29 as extracted below, as under: “26. Apropos to the sale/ transfer of subject shares to Mr. Gaurav Garg

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

capital gain. Page 13 of 21 ITA 3092/Del/2024 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent relies upon a Division Bench judgment of Karnataka High Court in Fathima Bai vs. ITO (2009) 32 DTR (Kar) 243 where in somewhat similar circumstances, it has been held that time-limit for deposit under scheme or utilisation can be made before

SUMEET DHIMAN,PUNJAB vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1), GURGAON

In the result, the Appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2788/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Us

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 54Section 54F

206/- was filed on 31/07/2014. The Assessing Officer noted that during the under consideration, the appellant had sold a residential property for an amount of Rs. 1,10,00,000/- on which the assessee had earned capital gain amounting to Rs. 76,64,058/-. The Assessing Officer further noted that the assessee had claimed deduction

M/S. HAVELLS INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4695/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing) Vs Havells India Ltd. Acit 1, Raj Narian Marg, Ltu Civil Lines New Delhi New Delhi Aaach0351E (Respondent) (Appellant)

Section 251Section 40Section 80I

section is only gains accruing as a result of transfer of the asset and nothing more. In the present case, as stated above, there was no “gain” on transfer/redemption of the shares in so far as the shares were redeemed at par value. Thus, there was no gain which accrued to the assessee as a result of redemption of such

CHANAN LAL DHINGRA,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1, GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 914/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: - i. An addition of Rs. 4,10For Respondent: Dr. Maninder Kaur, Sr. D. R
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 50CSection 54

capital gain. In fact by that time there was no time available with assessee for filing any revised return. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we set aside the issue of granting exemption under Section 54 and 54F of the Act back to the file of the Assessing Officer. The assessee is directed to submit the details before the Assessing

VIPIN JAIN & SONS HUF,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 56(2), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 910/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Ms. Madhumita Royvipin Jain & Sons Huf, Vs. Ito, Ward 56 (2), C/O Akhilesh Kumar, Advocate New Delhi. 206 -207, Ansal Satyam, Rdc, Ghaziabad – 201 002 (Uttar Pradesh). (Pan : Aadhv8042G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Tiwari, Advocate Ms. Tanya, Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 11.02.2025 Date Of Order : 09.04.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, New Delhi[“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 12.12.2018 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Because The Order Of Learned Lower Authority Is Bad In Law & Against The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Hence Is Unsustainable. 2. Because Ld. Cit (A) Grossly Erred In Law In Sustaining The Addition Of Rs.4,27,01,703/-, Being Total Sale Consideration Of Shares U/S 68 Of The Act While Said Amount Is Neither Credited To Books Of Account In The Absence Of Any Accounts Nor Source Of Said Amount Is Under Doubt, Hence Addition Is Beyond The Scope Of Provision.

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Tiwari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 68

206 -207, Ansal Satyam, RDC, Ghaziabad – 201 002 (Uttar Pradesh). (PAN : AADHV8042G) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Rohit Tiwari, Advocate Ms. Tanya, Advocate REVENUE BY : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 11.02.2025 Date of Order : 09.04.2025 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : 1. The assessee has filed appeal against the order

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S GANESHA SECURITIES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals preferred by the revenue stand

ITA 1279/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Smt. Beena A. Pillai:

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Kumar Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Agrawal CA
Section 10(38)Section 112(1)Section 44A

206/-. The AO has further noticed as under: “The perusal of the details filed by the assessee In respect of its claim of long term capital gains shows that the gain of Rs. 9841195/- has basically been derived from the sale of the scrip - Rasandik Engineering Industries India Ltd. It is the same scrip in which the assessee has also

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S GANESHA SECURITIES (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals preferred by the revenue stand

ITA 1563/DEL/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Smt. Beena A. Pillai:

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Kumar Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Agrawal CA
Section 10(38)Section 112(1)Section 44A

206/-. The AO has further noticed as under: “The perusal of the details filed by the assessee In respect of its claim of long term capital gains shows that the gain of Rs. 9841195/- has basically been derived from the sale of the scrip - Rasandik Engineering Industries India Ltd. It is the same scrip in which the assessee has also

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GANESHA SECURITIES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals preferred by the revenue stand

ITA 1747/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Smt. Beena A. Pillai:

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Kumar Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Agrawal CA
Section 10(38)Section 112(1)Section 44A

206/-. The AO has further noticed as under: “The perusal of the details filed by the assessee In respect of its claim of long term capital gains shows that the gain of Rs. 9841195/- has basically been derived from the sale of the scrip - Rasandik Engineering Industries India Ltd. It is the same scrip in which the assessee has also

ITO (E), GHAZIABAD vs. M/S. DAYANAND PUSHPA DEVI CHARITABLE TRUST, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2990/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: : Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 2(24)

section 11(1A) or 11(1)(a) i.e. making investment in capital/revenue expenditure for benefit u/s 11. This has also been observed by Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs M/s East India Charitable Trust 206 ITR 152 the AO has not challenged the application of capital gain

KUSUM SAHGAL,GURUGRAM vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-19(2), DELHI

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

ITA 341/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Kusum Sahgal, Through Lr Shri Vs. Acit, Circle-19(2), Viney Sagar Sahgal, New Delhi Mg-2002, The Magnolias, Golf Course Road Dlf Phase-V, Gurugram, 122 002 Haryana Pan :Aatps3766J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 54BSection 54ESection 54F

Capital Gain and interest income etc. Further, notices under Section 142(1) of the Act was issued to the assessee through ITBA (Income Tax Business Application) on 31/01/2018 asking for various details which was responded by the assessee by filing details/submission on 15/02/2018. Notices under Section 142(1) of the Act were also issued on 15/09/2018, 22/11/2018 and thereafter asking

SH. RAKESH KUMAR AGARWAL,MEERUT vs. ITO, HAPUR

In the result the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 298/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Sept 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Smt.Beena A Pillaiay: 2004-05 Sh. Rakesh Kumar Agarwal Vs. Ito, Ward 2 Radhapuri, Hapur Hapur C/O Rk Garg T-314, Ganga Plaza Beguma Bridge Road Meerut Pan: Abbpa 5843 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. R.K. Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. F.R.Meena, Sr.D.R
Section 50C

206/- Capital Gain Sale value as per section 50C(ii) as per DVO valuation Rs. 13,01,295/- Being average

INDUS TOWERS LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT CIRCLE 12(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1962/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarindus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Acit, Vs. Indus Towers Ltd, 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, Central Circle-10, New Delhi Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Indus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv Shri Rohit Jain, Adv Shri Deepesh Jain, Adv Ms. Shaurya Jain, Ca Revenue By: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10/12/2024

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 139(5)Section 142Section 143(3)Section 148

Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act holding that interest expenditure relates to acquisition/ construction of tower sites and is therefore a capital expenditure. The said amount was computed by the ld AO by applying 12% interest on total borrowed capital utilized for capital expenditure for the period of 150 days (alleged to be average days for construction/ acquisition