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.

23 results for “capital gains”+ Section 268Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Cochin31Delhi23Mumbai10Lucknow9Ahmedabad7Jaipur7Karnataka7Indore3Visakhapatnam2Jodhpur1Hyderabad1Patna1Pune1Raipur1Calcutta1

Key Topics

Section 268A18Addition to Income15Capital Gains9Section 143(3)7Long Term Capital Gains7Section 69C6Penny Stock5Section 1484Section 684Section 50C

ACIT, CIRCLE- 30(1), NEW DELHI vs. UMESH KUMAR ARORA, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4043/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2014-15 Vs. Acit, M/S. Umesh Kumar Arora, Circle-30(1), C-15, Greater Kailash Enclave-1, New Delhi Delhi-1100 48 Pan Aaapa4832A Pan :Aaapa4832A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

capital gain. Since you have claimed an LTCG of Rs.53,83,045/-, an amount of Rs.1,61,491/- i.e. 3% of Rs.53,83,045/- is being added u/s. 69C as unexplained expenditure. Further, purchase value of Rs.1,50,000/- is added back to your income as unexplained expenditure u/s. 69C. From the above portion of the impugned order

ITO, KARNAL vs. SMT SANTOSH BANSAL, KARNAL

In the result, appeal of the department is dismissed

Showing 1–20 of 23 · Page 1 of 2

4
Business Income4
Penalty4
ITA 4852/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. A. T. Varkey, Jm Ita No. 4852/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Income Tax Officer, Vs Smt. Santosh Bansal, Ward-2, H. No. 2292, Sector-13, Karnal Karnal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aiapb1656K Assessee By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Sujit Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.11.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.01.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sujit Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 268ASection 54F

capital gain u/s 54F without appreciating properly that the assessee did not fulfill the conditions laid down in the Act for claiming such deduction. 3. The appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is heard or disposed off.” 3. During the course of hearing, the ld. DR supported the order

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-19, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI vs. SATYA PRAKASH GUPTA, DELHI

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3925/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 3925/Del/2023 (A.Y 2013-14) Deputy Commissioner Of Income V Satya Prakash Gupta Tax, S H-3/1, Model Town, Central Circle-19, New Delhi Part-Iii, New Delhi Pan: Aahpg0717H Appellant Respondent Assessee By Adv.Sumit Lalchandani Revenue By Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing 11/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/09/2025 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 268A

268A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 - FILING OF APPEALS OR APPLICATION FOR REFERENCE BY INCOME-TAX AUTHORITY - SPECIAL ORDER OF BOARD EXEMPTING CASES INVOLVING BOGUS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS (LTCG)/SHORT TERM CAPITAL LOSS (STCL) THROUGH PENNY STOCKS FROM MONETARY LIMITS SPECIFIED IN ANY CIRCULAR ISSUED UNDER SECTION

ITO WARD - 3(4), NOIDA vs. SHOBHA AGNIHOTRI, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1193/DEL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Memebr D-4, Sec-27, Noida – 201 301 Noida-201 301 Pan No. Aewpa 0847 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By -None- Revenue By Shri Pradeep Singh Gautam, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 02.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.03.2023 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.12.2018 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Noida Relating To Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Relevant Facts As Culled From The Material On Records Are As Under:

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 68

capital gain on sale of immovable property after considering additional evidences filed before him during the course of appellate proceedings and without confronting these additional evidences to the Assessing Officer, which is violative not only of Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules but also of the principles of natural justice. 3. Without prejudice to ground no -1 above

ITO WARD - 3(1), NOIDA vs. RAMESH KUMAR, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed ex-parte

ITA 1211/DEL/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr.D.R
Section 144Section 268A(1)

Section 268A. (1) The Board may, from time to time, issue orders, instructions or directions to other income-tax authorities, fixing such monetary limits as it may deem fit, for the purpose of regulating filing of appeal or application for reference by any income-tax authority under the provisions of this Chapter" 10. The Revenue craves leave to modify

M/S. LAKHANI INDIA LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. ADDL.CIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the ld

ITA 3736/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiacit, Vs. Lakhani India Ltd, Circle-Ii, Block-B, Plot No. 131, New Cgo Complex, Nh-Iv, Nit, Sector-24, Faridabad Faridabad Pan: Aaacl3113G (Appellant) (Respondent) Lakhani India Ltd, Vs. Acit, Plot No. 131, Circle-Ii, Block-B, Sector-24, Faridabad New Cgo Complex, Nh-Iv, Pan: Aaacl3113G Nit, Faridabad (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143Section 14ASection 40

capitalized the interest on investment. However several other expenditure incurred in the form of establishment etc, assessee has not disallowed any sum u/s 14 A of the income tax act. As no expenses were disallowed by the assessee, learned assessing officer asked the assessee that why disallowance should not be made u/s 14 A of the income tax Act . Assessee

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DALLAS FINANCE LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 3946/DEL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Apr 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava, Jm Ita No. 3946/Del/2010 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Acit, Vs M/S Dallas Finance Ltd., Circle-10(1), F-45, Bhagat Singh Market, New Delhi New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacd2217M Assessee By : Sh. Salil Aggarwal & Sh. S. Gupta, Advs. Revenue By : Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.04.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.04.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Aggarwal & Sh. S. Gupta, AdvsFor Respondent: Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 111ASection 2

Capital Gain u/s 111A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It was stated that the tax effect in this case comes less than Rs. 10,00,000/-, therefore, the department ought not to have filed the appeal. The calculations for the tax effect were given as under: STCG of Rs.45,35,289/- Tax already

ACIT, NAJIBABAD vs. SHRI DHRUV RAJ SINGH, BIJNOR

In the result, Appeal filed by the Revenue Stands dismissed

ITA 5195/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Piyush Kaushik, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vijay Kr. Jiwani, Sr. DR
Section 23(1)Section 69C

Capital Gain in r/o transfer of booking rights in Emerald floors, Gurgaon without appreciating the fact that the assessee has not disclosed it and it was came out by the efforts made by the assessing officer. 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals! has erred in allowing relief to the extent

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)

268A of the I.T. Act. The Assessee’s cross objections were also dismissed in these years as being related to the main appeals . However we were informed that the assessee has moved for restoration of those cross objection. The issue raised being independent of the main appeals. The matter is apparently pending. For the years under our consideration

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)

268A of the I.T. Act. The Assessee’s cross objections were also dismissed in these years as being related to the main appeals . However we were informed that the assessee has moved for restoration of those cross objection. The issue raised being independent of the main appeals. The matter is apparently pending. For the years under our consideration

ACIT, CIRCLE- 7(1), NEW DELHI vs. DECENT FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 594/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: The Ld. Cit (A) Challenging Both

For Appellant: Shri Amit Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kumar Nayyar, Sr. DR
Section 148Section 268ASection 69C

gainfully refer to the Head Note of the aforesaid decision as under :- “Section 268A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Filing of appeal or application for reference by income-tax authority (Circular No. 23 of 2019) - Assessment year 2011-12 - Whether Circular No. 23 of 2019 dated 6-9-2019 read with Office Memorandum dated 16-9-2019, shall apply

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-13, NEW DELHI vs. DEEPAK AGARWAL, DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 8796/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson. CIT- DR
Section 268A

capital gains through penny stocks but pertains to commission income of the assessee and the concerned Assessing Officer in his reply has taken a categorical note of the same. The Ld. CIT-DR had nothing to say in this regard. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. Perusal of the aforesaid appeals filed

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-13, NEW DELHI vs. DEEPAK AGARWAL, DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 8794/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson. CIT- DR
Section 268A

capital gains through penny stocks but pertains to commission income of the assessee and the concerned Assessing Officer in his reply has taken a categorical note of the same. The Ld. CIT-DR had nothing to say in this regard. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. Perusal of the aforesaid appeals filed

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-13, NEW DELHI vs. DEEPAK AGARWAL, DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 8795/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson. CIT- DR
Section 268A

capital gains through penny stocks but pertains to commission income of the assessee and the concerned Assessing Officer in his reply has taken a categorical note of the same. The Ld. CIT-DR had nothing to say in this regard. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. Perusal of the aforesaid appeals filed

ITO, MEERUT vs. SHRI VISHAL AGARWAL, MEERUT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross

ITA 5801/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Am & Smt. Beena. A. Pillai, Jm Assessment Year : 2008-09 Ito, Vs. Vishal Agarwal, Ward-2(4), Prop. M/S Vishnu Cold Drinks, Meerut. 46/3, Kalyani, Civil Lines, Meerut. Pan: Aewpa6423P Co No.59/Del/2014 (Ita No.5801/Del/2013) Assessment Year : 2008-09 Vishal Agarwal, Vs. Ito, C/O M/S Malik & Co., Ward-2(4), 305/7, Thapar Nagar, Meerut. Meerut. Pan: Aewpa6423P

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Malik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Aasish Mohanty, Sr.DR
Section 268ASection 50C

268A, the CBDT has issued Circular No. 21 of 2015 dated 10.12.2015 with retrospective effect, revising the monetary limit to Rs.10,00,000/- for not filing appeals before the Tribunal. He further submitted that as the tax effect involved in the instant appeal is less than Rs.10,00,000/-, the extant appeal is not maintainable. The ld. D.R., although supported

ITO, WARD- 2(5), NOIDA vs. VISHAMBHARI, DADRI

In the result, the Departmental Appeal is not maintainable as have been filed against the instruction of the Board

ITA 3530/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Dr. Anjula Jain, Sr. D.R
Section 143(2)Section 268A

capital gains. The Ld. CIT(A) quashed the re-assessment order for non issuance of notice under section 143(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2 ITA.No.3530/Del./2018 Smt. Vishambhari, Village Ranauli Latifpur, Dadri, Gautam Budh Nagar. 2. I have heard the Learned D.R. Admittedly, the tax effect in the Departmental Appeal is less than Rs.20 lakhs. Vide Circular

ITO, WARD- 1(1), NOIDA vs. ANANTRAM, GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR

In the result, the Departmental Appeal is not maintainable as have been filed against the instruction of the Board

ITA 36/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: Ms. Akriti Dewan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Anjula Jain, Sr. D.R
Section 143(2)Section 268A

capital gains in a sum of Rs.37,97,670/-. The Ld. CIT(A) in the absence of issue of notice under section 143(2) held assessment is void abinitio. 2. I have heard the Learned Representatives of both the parties. Admittedly, the tax effect in the Departmental Appeal is less than Rs.20 lakhs. Vide Circular No. 3 of 2018 dated

ITO, MUZAFFARNAGAR vs. NIDHI BANSAL, MUZAFFARNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3278/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Mar 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Sh.O.P.Kant

Section 268ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 50C

section 50C of the I.T.Act, 1961 and accepting the valuation report as submitted by the assessee and consequently allowed the relief of Rs.13,16,718/- on account of long term capital gain. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the long term capital gain of Rs.4

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. R.C. KAPOOR (HUF), NEW DELHI

In the result, the Departmental Appeal is not maintainable as have been filed against the instruction of the Board

ITA 2549/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Alok Prakash Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. Tiwari, Sr. D.R
Section 268A

capital gains. 3. Admittedly, the tax effect in the Departmental Appeal is less than Rs.20 lakhs. Vide Circular No. 3 of 2018 dated 11.07.2018 issued by CBDT under section 268A

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. SANGEETA RANI, GURGAON

In the result, the Departmental appeals are not maintainable as the appeals are filed against the Board instructions referred to above and therefore, the appeals of the Department are liable to be ...

ITA 1893/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Shailesh Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha, CIT-D.R
Section 268ASection 271(1)(c)

capital gains and made further addition of Rs.64,461/- on 2 ITA.No.300/Del./2017 M/s. Modi Entertainment Network Ltd., New Delhi. account of estimated business income. Both these additions have been deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). 3. In ITA.No.1894/Del./2016, the Revenue challenged the cancellation of penalty under section