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.

18 results for “capital gains”+ Section 245Dclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai58Kolkata21Delhi18Chandigarh16Indore12Jaipur12Surat8Pune6Agra5Telangana3Varanasi2Lucknow1Karnataka1SC1Bangalore1

Key Topics

Section 26325Addition to Income14Section 143(3)11Section 1427Section 153A6Section 686Section 1545Section 244A5Short Term Capital Gains5

ANIL DUA,NEW DELHI vs. PCIT -10, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 1843/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2018-19 Anil Dua Vs. Pcit -10 F-13, Kailash Colony, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110048 Pan :Aacpd8370L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263Section 263(1)Section 54

capital gain out of the income on sale of property and deduction under Section 54 claimed thereon does not and cannot arise at all. On revision order passed under Section 263 of the Act is, therefore, not legally sustainable and liable to be quashed. The judgment passed by the Hon’ble High Court at Delhi in the case of PCIT

Bogus Purchases5
Section 1434
Deduction4

GUNJAN GARG,DELHI vs. PR. CIT-16, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed considering the above two aspects and keeping the other aspects open

ITA 1205/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Nov 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Gunjan Garg, Vs. Pr. Cit-16, C/O. Raj Kumar & Associates Ca, Room No. 101, Drum Shape L-7A(Lgf) South Exten. Part-Ii, New Building, New Delhi Delhi Pan: Aagpg5718B (Appellant) (Respondent) Mukesh Garg, Vs. Pr. Cit-16, C/O. Raj Kumar & Associates Ca, Room No. 101, Drum Shape L-7A(Lgf) South Exten. Part-Ii, New Building, New Delhi Delhi Pan: Aaapg2585Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Suniita Singh, CIT DR
Section 111Section 143Section 143(3)Section 245FSection 263Section 54B

245D (2C) by Income Tax Settlement Commission. Therefore once the petition stands filed before the settlement commission the exclusive jurisdiction from the point of filing of the same lies only with the settlement commission. b. It was further contended that the issue of subject matter Section 263 proceedings as well as before the settlement commission is the same. He stated

MUKESH GARG,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT - 16, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed considering the above two aspects and keeping the other aspects open

ITA 1206/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Nov 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Gunjan Garg, Vs. Pr. Cit-16, C/O. Raj Kumar & Associates Ca, Room No. 101, Drum Shape L-7A(Lgf) South Exten. Part-Ii, New Building, New Delhi Delhi Pan: Aagpg5718B (Appellant) (Respondent) Mukesh Garg, Vs. Pr. Cit-16, C/O. Raj Kumar & Associates Ca, Room No. 101, Drum Shape L-7A(Lgf) South Exten. Part-Ii, New Building, New Delhi Delhi Pan: Aaapg2585Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Suniita Singh, CIT DR
Section 111Section 143Section 143(3)Section 245FSection 263Section 54B

245D (2C) by Income Tax Settlement Commission. Therefore once the petition stands filed before the settlement commission the exclusive jurisdiction from the point of filing of the same lies only with the settlement commission. b. It was further contended that the issue of subject matter Section 263 proceedings as well as before the settlement commission is the same. He stated

JAGDISH CHANDRA MALHOTRA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5651/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt.Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Nagesh Kumar Bahl, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.K. Jaiswal, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 201Section 234CSection 244A

capital gain tax has been I.T.A. No. 5651/D/2013 Assessment year 2008-09 calculated at the rate of 30% whereas it should be at 20% as per section 112 of the Act 7. We have perused the materials available on record and considered the submissions made by both the parties. It is clear from the above cited judgements that the assessee

SHRIKANTA BAJAJ,NEW DELHI vs. PR.CIT(CENTRAL) - 3, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 553/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2017-18 Vikram Bajaj, Vs Pr. Cit (Central)-3, Rnp House, New Delhi. 1 Shivaji Enclave, Main Road, Near Raja Garden, New Delhi – 110 027. Pan: Acxpb6203D Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shrikanta Bajaj, Vs. Pr. Cit (Central)-3, Rnp House, New Delhi. 1 Shivaji Enclave, Main Road, Near Raja Garden, New Delhi – 110 027. Pan: Ahlpr0130J (Appellants) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sumit Lalchandani, Advocate & Shri Shivam Yadav, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Prakash Nath Barnwal, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.07.2023 Order Per M. Balaganesh, Am: These Appeals In Ita No.552/Del/2021 & 553/Del/2021 For Ay 2016-17 Arise Out Of The Orders Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Delhi-

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Lalchandani, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Prakash Nath Barnwal, CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 263

245D(4) of the Act on 27.02.2023 in the hands of M/s RNB Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. Before passing this order, the ld.PCIT, in his Rule 9 Report had stated that the capital gain had to be assessed in the hands of Shri Vikram Bajaj and Smt. Shrikanta Bajaj as they are the registered owners of the property. This argument

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. INDERPAL SINGH WADHAWAN, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 952/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiinder Pal Singh Wadhawan, Jcit, E/1/7, Ii Nd Floor, East Patel Vs. Circle-33, Nagar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aarps6904L (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Inder Pal Singh Wadhawan, Circle-33(1), Room No.1505, E/1/7, Ii Nd Floor, Vs. 15Th Floor, Dr. Shyama Prasad East Patel Nagar, New Delhi Mukherjee Civil Centre, New Delhi Pan: Aarps6904L (Appellant) (Respondent) Inder Pal Singh Wadhawan, Acit, E/1/7, Ii Nd Floor, East Patel Circle-33, Vs. Nagar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aarps6904L (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Inder Pal Singh Wadhawan, Circle-33(1), Room No.1505, 15Th E/1/7, Ii Nd Floor, Vs. Floor, Dr. Shyama Prasad East Patel Nagar, New Delhi Mukherjee Civil Centre, Pan: Aarps6904L New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vijay Verma, CIT DR
Section 142Section 143(3)Section 68

capital gain from sale of "property no-67 Punjabi Bagh and addition of Rs.13,93,010/- on account of under valuation of closing stock. Inderpal Singh Wadhawan V JCIT & JCIT V Inderpal singh Wadhawan ITA No 1155 & 1589 / Del/2013 & 1489 & 952 /Del/2013 A Y 2007-08 & 2008-09 Page 3 of 59 6. The CIT(A) has erred in deleting

MR. INDER PAL SINGH WADHAWAN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1589/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiinder Pal Singh Wadhawan, Jcit, E/1/7, Ii Nd Floor, East Patel Vs. Circle-33, Nagar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aarps6904L (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Inder Pal Singh Wadhawan, Circle-33(1), Room No.1505, E/1/7, Ii Nd Floor, Vs. 15Th Floor, Dr. Shyama Prasad East Patel Nagar, New Delhi Mukherjee Civil Centre, New Delhi Pan: Aarps6904L (Appellant) (Respondent) Inder Pal Singh Wadhawan, Acit, E/1/7, Ii Nd Floor, East Patel Circle-33, Vs. Nagar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aarps6904L (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Inder Pal Singh Wadhawan, Circle-33(1), Room No.1505, 15Th E/1/7, Ii Nd Floor, Vs. Floor, Dr. Shyama Prasad East Patel Nagar, New Delhi Mukherjee Civil Centre, Pan: Aarps6904L New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vijay Verma, CIT DR
Section 142Section 143(3)Section 68

capital gain from sale of "property no-67 Punjabi Bagh and addition of Rs.13,93,010/- on account of under valuation of closing stock. Inderpal Singh Wadhawan V JCIT & JCIT V Inderpal singh Wadhawan ITA No 1155 & 1589 / Del/2013 & 1489 & 952 /Del/2013 A Y 2007-08 & 2008-09 Page 3 of 59 6. The CIT(A) has erred in deleting

MR. INDER PAL SINGH WADHAWAN,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1155/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiinder Pal Singh Wadhawan, Jcit, E/1/7, Ii Nd Floor, East Patel Vs. Circle-33, Nagar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aarps6904L (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Inder Pal Singh Wadhawan, Circle-33(1), Room No.1505, E/1/7, Ii Nd Floor, Vs. 15Th Floor, Dr. Shyama Prasad East Patel Nagar, New Delhi Mukherjee Civil Centre, New Delhi Pan: Aarps6904L (Appellant) (Respondent) Inder Pal Singh Wadhawan, Acit, E/1/7, Ii Nd Floor, East Patel Circle-33, Vs. Nagar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aarps6904L (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Inder Pal Singh Wadhawan, Circle-33(1), Room No.1505, 15Th E/1/7, Ii Nd Floor, Vs. Floor, Dr. Shyama Prasad East Patel Nagar, New Delhi Mukherjee Civil Centre, Pan: Aarps6904L New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vijay Verma, CIT DR
Section 142Section 143(3)Section 68

capital gain from sale of "property no-67 Punjabi Bagh and addition of Rs.13,93,010/- on account of under valuation of closing stock. Inderpal Singh Wadhawan V JCIT & JCIT V Inderpal singh Wadhawan ITA No 1155 & 1589 / Del/2013 & 1489 & 952 /Del/2013 A Y 2007-08 & 2008-09 Page 3 of 59 6. The CIT(A) has erred in deleting

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GUPTA & CO. PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both the Revenue’s Appeals stand dismissed and both the Assessee’s Cross Objections stand partly allowed in the aforesaid manner

ITA 730/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Sh. Arvind Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 245C(3)Section 245D(4)Section 254Section 254C(3)

245D(4) wherein it refused to accept that the papers in question belong to M/s Gupta Perfumers P. Ltd., however it decided to accept the declaration made by that party, on the ground that an application once made cannot be withdrawn u/s 254C(3). It, meanwhile, left the question of ownership of documents open. The relevant portions of the orders

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GUPTA & CO. PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both the Revenue’s Appeals stand dismissed and both the Assessee’s Cross Objections stand partly allowed in the aforesaid manner

ITA 729/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2019AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Sh. Arvind Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 245C(3)Section 245D(4)Section 254Section 254C(3)

245D(4) wherein it refused to accept that the papers in question belong to M/s Gupta Perfumers P. Ltd., however it decided to accept the declaration made by that party, on the ground that an application once made cannot be withdrawn u/s 254C(3). It, meanwhile, left the question of ownership of documents open. The relevant portions of the orders

M/S VARDAAN FASHION,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 3 of the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1143/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishivardan Fashions, Jcit, E-1/7, 2Nd Floor, East Patel Range-33, Vs. Nagar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aacfv0423H (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vardan Fashions, Circle-33(1) E-1/7, 2Nd Floor, East Patel Vs. New Delhi Nagar, New Delhi Pan:Aacfv0423H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vijay Verma, CIT DR
Section 142Section 40

gain by procuring inflated purchases which is not found recorded in the books of accounts of the appellant. The Assessing Officer did not question the rate of purchase in comparison to/market price. Therefore, the Assessing Officer's finding that the appellant made inflated purchases is without any supporting material on record. On the contrary, the appellant furnished the complete details

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S VARDAN FASHION, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 3 of the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 950/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishivardan Fashions, Jcit, E-1/7, 2Nd Floor, East Patel Range-33, Vs. Nagar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aacfv0423H (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vardan Fashions, Circle-33(1) E-1/7, 2Nd Floor, East Patel Vs. New Delhi Nagar, New Delhi Pan:Aacfv0423H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vijay Verma, CIT DR
Section 142Section 40

gain by procuring inflated purchases which is not found recorded in the books of accounts of the appellant. The Assessing Officer did not question the rate of purchase in comparison to/market price. Therefore, the Assessing Officer's finding that the appellant made inflated purchases is without any supporting material on record. On the contrary, the appellant furnished the complete details

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. HIMANSHU VERMA, DELHI

In the result all the appeals filed by the Revenue and Assessee are dismissed

ITA 1752/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

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

capital gain and that he was managing and controlling a number of companies/firms/sole proprietorship concerns and a number of bank accounts in the name of these entities in different banks. The Assessing Officer in the assessment order had detailed the modus operandi of the appellant adopted for providing accommodation entries and held him to be an accommodation entry operator

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. HIMANSHU VERMA, DELHI

In the result all the appeals filed by the Revenue and Assessee are dismissed

ITA 1753/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

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

capital gain and that he was managing and controlling a number of companies/firms/sole proprietorship concerns and a number of bank accounts in the name of these entities in different banks. The Assessing Officer in the assessment order had detailed the modus operandi of the appellant adopted for providing accommodation entries and held him to be an accommodation entry operator

SH. HIMANSHU VERMA,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result all the appeals filed by the Revenue and Assessee are dismissed

ITA 1629/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

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

capital gain and that he was managing and controlling a number of companies/firms/sole proprietorship concerns and a number of bank accounts in the name of these entities in different banks. The Assessing Officer in the assessment order had detailed the modus operandi of the appellant adopted for providing accommodation entries and held him to be an accommodation entry operator

SH. HIMANSHU VERMA,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result all the appeals filed by the Revenue and Assessee are dismissed

ITA 1627/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

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

capital gain and that he was managing and controlling a number of companies/firms/sole proprietorship concerns and a number of bank accounts in the name of these entities in different banks. The Assessing Officer in the assessment order had detailed the modus operandi of the appellant adopted for providing accommodation entries and held him to be an accommodation entry operator

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. HIMANSHU VERMA, DELHI

In the result all the appeals filed by the Revenue and Assessee are dismissed

ITA 1754/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

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

capital gain and that he was managing and controlling a number of companies/firms/sole proprietorship concerns and a number of bank accounts in the name of these entities in different banks. The Assessing Officer in the assessment order had detailed the modus operandi of the appellant adopted for providing accommodation entries and held him to be an accommodation entry operator

SH. HIMANSHU VERMA,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result all the appeals filed by the Revenue and Assessee are dismissed

ITA 1628/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

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

capital gain and that he was managing and controlling a number of companies/firms/sole proprietorship concerns and a number of bank accounts in the name of these entities in different banks. The Assessing Officer in the assessment order had detailed the modus operandi of the appellant adopted for providing accommodation entries and held him to be an accommodation entry operator