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.

401 results for “capital gains”+ Section 260clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai641Delhi401Karnataka346Bangalore235Chennai137Jaipur97Kolkata80Ahmedabad69Hyderabad61Calcutta52Telangana51Pune44Visakhapatnam43Chandigarh30Lucknow23Cochin19Nagpur19Cuttack19Indore18SC15Surat15Rajkot11Agra10Dehradun9Varanasi8Raipur8Amritsar7Jodhpur7Patna4Allahabad3Andhra Pradesh2Punjab & Haryana2Rajasthan2Jabalpur2Guwahati2ANIL R. DAVE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1Himachal Pradesh1Panaji1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Orissa1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)56Addition to Income54Section 8038Disallowance26Section 11525Section 153C25Section 14824Section 14721Deduction21Section 14A

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ECE INDUSTRIES LTD.

ITA/417/2007HC Delhi24 Dec 2010

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT

Section 50Section 50(2)

Section 50(2) were not attracted. It also contended that it was an old concern for more than 36 months, its transfer would give long term capital gain. The assessee also relied on Commissioner of Income-Tax, Gujarat v. M/s. Artex Manufacturing Co. [227 ITR 260

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. ECE Industries Limited

ITA-417/2007HC Delhi24 Dec 2010
Section 50Section 50(2)

Section 50(2) were not attracted. It also contended that it was an old concern for more than 36 months, its transfer would give long term capital gain. The assessee also relied on Commissioner of Income-Tax, Gujarat v. M/s. Artex Manufacturing Co. [227 ITR 260

Showing 1–20 of 401 · Page 1 of 21

...
19
Section 10A18
Capital Gains12

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 the same proportion as the cost of the new asset bears to the net consideration, shall not be charged under section 45: Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall apply where- (a) the assessee,- (i) owns more than one residential house, other than the new asset, on the date of transfer of the original asset

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 the same proportion as the cost of the new asset bears to the net consideration, shall not be charged under section 45: Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall apply where- (a) the assessee,- (i) owns more than one residential house, other than the new asset, on the date of transfer of the original asset

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

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

SHRI VALMIK THAPAR,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

ITA 6346/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

For Appellant: Shri Salil AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 143Section 147Section 54Section 54E

Section and was without jurisdiction and was liable to be quashed as such.” 5. Relying heavily on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in case of National Thermal Power Co Ltd versus Commissioner of Income Tax [229 ITR 383], assessee submitted that assessee is challenging the reopening of the assessment proceedings, which is a jurisdictional ground, which

SH. VALMIK THAPAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

ITA 5767/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

For Appellant: Shri Salil AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 143Section 147Section 54Section 54E

Section and was without jurisdiction and was liable to be quashed as such.” 5. Relying heavily on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in case of National Thermal Power Co Ltd versus Commissioner of Income Tax [229 ITR 383], assessee submitted that assessee is challenging the reopening of the assessment proceedings, which is a jurisdictional ground, which

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. VALMIK THAPAR, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

ITA 6726/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

For Appellant: Shri Salil AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 143Section 147Section 54Section 54E

Section and was without jurisdiction and was liable to be quashed as such.” 5. Relying heavily on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in case of National Thermal Power Co Ltd versus Commissioner of Income Tax [229 ITR 383], assessee submitted that assessee is challenging the reopening of the assessment proceedings, which is a jurisdictional ground, which

SUNITA KHEMKA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 15, JHANDEWALAN EXTN., NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 389/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Aug 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar, C.A. &For Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. D.R
Section 10Section 10(38)

capital gain as exempt u/s 10(38), is not discharged in the instant case. " 3.2. The Assessing Officer referred to all the aforesaid facts and held that LTCG amounting to Rs. 19,39,357/- was unaccounted income of the assessee and added the same to the total income of the assessee u/s 68 19 ITA.No.389/Del./2018 Smt. Sunita Khemka

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

Capital gains - Exemption - Assessee was entitled to claim exemption u/s 54F as assessee has put up a new construction in place of old residential building as provisions of section 54F mandate construction of a residential house within period specified however, there was no condition that building plan of residential house should be approved by Municipal Corporation or any other competent

SHRI KRISHNA SHRIRAM,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and Revenue are dismissed

ITA 866/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2006-07

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 263Section 56Section 69

260 ITR 417(P & H) 2) CIT vs. Ramaamirtham 306 ITR 239 (Mad.) 3) CTR vs. Gopal Purohit 228 ITR 582 (Mum) To state that where it had been accepted as capital gains in the earlier years, the same cannot be treated as stock-in-trade in the subsequent years. In view of the above discussion, the detailed factors

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. KRISHNA SHRIRAM, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1417/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2006-07

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 263Section 56Section 69

260 ITR 417(P & H) 2) CIT vs. Ramaamirtham 306 ITR 239 (Mad.) 3) CTR vs. Gopal Purohit 228 ITR 582 (Mum) To state that where it had been accepted as capital gains in the earlier years, the same cannot be treated as stock-in-trade in the subsequent years. In view of the above discussion, the detailed factors

SHIKHA DHAWAN,GURGAON vs. ITO, WARD- 4(2), GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3035/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh.Bhavnesh Saini[Assessment Year: 2014-15] Vs Smt. Shikha Dhawan, Ito, C-101, Centre Park, Ward-4(2), Sector-42, Gurgaon. Gurgaon. Pan-Ccbps1718L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Gautam Jain & Sh. Peeyush Kamal, Advocate Respondent By Sh. S.L.Anuragi, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 11.06.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 27.06.2018

Section 10(38)Section 68

capital gain as exempt u/s 10(38), is not discharged in the instant case. " 3.2. The Assessing Officer referred to all the aforesaid facts and held that LTCG amounting to Rs. 19,39,357/- was unaccounted income of the assessee and added the same to the total income of the assessee u/s 68 of the IT Act. The Assessing Officer

ACIT CIRCLE-3 (1), NEW DELHI vs. BULLS & BEARS PORTFOLIO LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2727/DEL/2008[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2017AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, &For Respondent: Shri S.K. Jain, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 43B

section 14A” 3. First we take up the appeal in assessment year 2005-06. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of stock broking services and was also engaged in investment in shares and stocks. In the return for AY 2005-06 it has declared returned income

TRIUNE PROJECTS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No.2 and 2

ITA 3917/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anshu Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 14A

section 14A and Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules 1962 is not permissible. our view is also gest support by the decisions of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Taikisha Engineering Ltd 370 ITR 338 where Hon’ble High Court has held that AO at the first instance must examine the disallowance made

CONTINENTAL CONSTRUCTION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 4710/DEL/2010[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2020AY 1995-96

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri P. Maharishi & Vs Continental Construction Acit, Ltd, 28, Nehru Place, Circle – 3(1), New Delhi – 110019. Room No.390, C.R. Building, (Pan: Aaacc 2309 R) Indraprastha Estate, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) & Vs Acit, Continental Construction Ltd, Circle – 3(1), 28, Nehru Place, New Delhi – 110019. Room No.390, C.R. (Pan: Aaacc 2309 R) Building, Indraprastha Estate, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Subodh Gupta, Fca Respondent By Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing 14.08.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 23.09.2020

capital gain is being worked out as under: Compensation received by the assessee company Rs.55,09,63,271/- ITA No.4710-Del-2010 Against the assets Less: w.d.v. of block of assets Rs. 1,23,60,483/- Rs.53,86,02,788/- 23. The assessee company had originally shown to have sold 50 lakh shares of face value 10 each of its subsidiary company

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DIVYA SHAKTI TRADING SERVICES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5178/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2021AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Jain, Adv. and Shri
Section 143(3)

Section 111 (A), since it was its business.” 7. Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submission in the entire factum of the material placed on record, accepted the assessee’s contention and heavily relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gopal Purohit (2010) 188 Taxman 140 (Bom). The relevant finding

RAJENDRA AGGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-1(3), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 107/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri M. Balaganesh[Assessment Year: 2017-18]

Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54(2)Section 54F

capital gain is to be deposited within time prescribed u/s 54(2) of the Act and there is no mandate that the same very amount should be deposited, because there cannot be such legal mandate as there can never be any direct link as such. Secondly, the section itself permits that a property can be acquired well within 12 months

ROOP KUMAR BANSAL,GURGAON vs. PR,CIT (CENTRAL), GURGAON

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

ITA 386/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Kant

For Appellant: And Shri Lalit Mohan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 263

capital gains of Rs.7,37,78,840/-. The A.O. on these facts proceeded to frame assessment under section 153B read with section 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 Dated 18.12.2018 in the present case and has accepted the returned income after examining the issue in detail after calling for the 68 ITA.Nos.383, 384, 385 & 386/Del./2021 Smt. Abha