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.

1,240 results for “capital gains”+ Section 271(1)(C)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,421Delhi1,240Ahmedabad409Jaipur354Chennai295Kolkata257Bangalore235Surat170Hyderabad165Pune164Indore144Karnataka118Chandigarh98Visakhapatnam78Raipur62Lucknow54Calcutta54Nagpur45Rajkot34Cuttack31Amritsar29Ranchi27Guwahati26Cochin25Agra21Dehradun17Patna16Telangana14SC12Panaji7Jodhpur7Allahabad6Jabalpur4Varanasi4Rajasthan3Punjab & Haryana2ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Andhra Pradesh1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)84Addition to Income71Section 143(3)49Penalty34Section 153A27Disallowance27Deduction26Section 14A24Long Term Capital Gains24

MR. NIKHIL SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1249/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarmr. Nikhil Sawhney, Vs. Dcit, 17, Sunder Nagar, Central Circle, New Delhi-11003 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaups0222Q

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur hansra, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)

capital gains, and under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (pages 124, 125) : "From the charging provisions of the Act, it is discernible that the words 'income' or 'profits and gains' should be understood as including losses also, so that, in one sense 'profits and gains' represent 'plus income' whereas losses represent 'minus income'*. In * CIT v. Karamchand Premchand

DCIT, CIRCLE 22(2), NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI vs. SAHIL VACHANI, DELHI

Showing 1–20 of 1,240 · Page 1 of 62

...
Section 143(2)21
Section 54F21
Section 14819

Appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2604/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice Presdient (), Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shriavdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.2604/िद"ी/2023(िन.व. 2016-17)

For Appellant: S/Shri Anuj Garg & Narpat Singh, Sr.DRFor Respondent: S/Shri Rohan Khare & Priyam
Section 271(1)(c)Section 54F

section 271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intendment of the Legislature. [Emphasized by us] 7. Thus, in facts of the case and in light of the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court, we find no infirmity in the order of First Appellate Authority in deleting levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Ergo, the impugned

SURESH CHAND BANSAL,HARYANA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-16 , DELHI

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

ITA 3666/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. In this regard all of his observation is wrong and against the facts and law. 3. That on facts & circumstances of the case the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. 4. That the Commissioner of Income

AMIT BANSAL,HARYANA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-16, DELHI

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

ITA 3665/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. In this regard all of his observation is wrong and against the facts and law. 3. That on facts & circumstances of the case the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. 4. That the Commissioner of Income

AMIT BANSAL,HARYANA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-16, DELHI

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

ITA 3664/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. In this regard all of his observation is wrong and against the facts and law. 3. That on facts & circumstances of the case the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. 4. That the Commissioner of Income

MR. NIKHIL SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1248/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Aug 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishimr. Nikhil Sawhney Acit, 17 – Sunder Nagar, Central Circle, Vs. New Delhi – 110 003. Noida. Pan: Aaups0222Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143

capital gains', on which no securities transaction tax is paid and accordingly, confirmed levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c

M/S. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.(HUDCO),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1162/DEL/2011[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2019AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Gagan Kumar
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36Section 36(1)(viii)Section 41

capital gains to tax in the return of income. During the course of assessment proceedings when these incomes were picked up by the tax officer, the taxpayer admitted earning of the incomes and filed a revised computation of income. Based on this finding, the tax officer mentioned in the assessment order that penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c

M/S. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.(HUDCO),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1160/DEL/2011[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2019AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Gagan Kumar
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36Section 36(1)(viii)Section 41

capital gains to tax in the return of income. During the course of assessment proceedings when these incomes were picked up by the tax officer, the taxpayer admitted earning of the incomes and filed a revised computation of income. Based on this finding, the tax officer mentioned in the assessment order that penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c

HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 5234/DEL/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2019AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Gagan Kumar
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36Section 36(1)(viii)Section 41

capital gains to tax in the return of income. During the course of assessment proceedings when these incomes were picked up by the tax officer, the taxpayer admitted earning of the incomes and filed a revised computation of income. Based on this finding, the tax officer mentioned in the assessment order that penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c

M/S. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.(HUDCO),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1161/DEL/2011[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2019AY 1999-00

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Gagan Kumar
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36Section 36(1)(viii)Section 41

capital gains to tax in the return of income. During the course of assessment proceedings when these incomes were picked up by the tax officer, the taxpayer admitted earning of the incomes and filed a revised computation of income. Based on this finding, the tax officer mentioned in the assessment order that penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c

HARISH KUMAR HUF,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-34(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1469/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Dr. B.R.R. Kumara.Y. : 2015-16

For Appellant: Sh. Naveen ND Gupta, CA & Sh. AshuFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 288ASection 94(7)

c) after finding the explanation to be unacceptable and applying Explanation 1 (B) of the section.” “The brief facts of the case for your kind consideration are as follows:- f the case for your kind consideration are as follows: • The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS with identified issues of 'Long term capital gain', 'business

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. RESURGERE MINES AND MINERALS INDIA LTD., MUMBAI

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

ITA 1531/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, CA and Shri Ashish Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)

Capital Services India And Others Versus Addl. CIT, Rage 12, New Delhi And Others I. T.A. No. 2897/0el/2007, I. T.A. No. 2807/0el/2007 Dated - 10 June 2015 ITAT Delhi 2. Garware Wall Ropes Limited vs, Addl.CIT ITA No. 5408/Mum/2012 judgment dated 15/01/2014 3. EIH Associated Hotels Limited Vs. DCIT , Company Circle 11(1), ITA No. 1503/MDS/2012 ITA No.- 1531/Del/2017. M/s Resurgere

JAGDISH PRASAD AVDESH KUMAR HUF,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-36(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands

ITA 7091/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

Section 10(38)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 27lSection 68

section 271 (1) (c) of the Act; iv) Fourthly, on merits of the claim no where it is objected by Ld AO/CIT-A that extant claim u/s 10(38) of the Act is already decided in favor of assessee by various higher court rulings so penalty u/s 271(l)(c) cannot be levied when addition itself is seriously questionable; v) Fifthly

JAGDISH PRASAD BHARAT KUMAR HUF,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-36(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands

ITA 7092/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

Section 10(38)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 27lSection 68

section 271 (1) (c) of the Act; iv) Fourthly, on merits of the claim no where it is objected by Ld AO/CIT-A that extant claim u/s 10(38) of the Act is already decided in favor of assessee by various higher court rulings so penalty u/s 271(l)(c) cannot be levied when addition itself is seriously questionable; v) Fifthly

SATPAL SAINI,NOIDA vs. ITO, WARD- 3(3), NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3743/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Bleita No. 3743/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Satpal Saini, Vs Income Tax Officer, C-1, Sector-53, Ward-3(3), Noida-201301 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Bdrps9119R Assessee By : Sh. Vivek Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Surender Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2018 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 21.03.2018 Of Ld. Cit(A)-1, Noida.

For Appellant: Sh. Vivek Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Surender Meena, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

capital gains was disclosed by the appellant inaccurately and was also concealed disguised as exempt from tax. The Ld. AO therefore correctly invoked the provisions of Section 271(1)(c

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SITASHRI TRADING & FINANCE PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2295/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Sanjiv Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Tiwari, Sr.DR
Section 10Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 14Section 143(2)Section 14A

271 (1 )( c) of Rs. 3455511/- which was levied. The penalty in these case levied as additions were made on account of adding/inclusion of long term capital gain claim exempt u/s 10(38) amounting to Rs. 1,77,74,907/- and disallowance u/s 14A at Rs. 2,36,105/-. The CIT (A) held that assessee has filed revised computation

SANJEEV KUMAR AGGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 6, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2871/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2018AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT-D.R
Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The reply of the assessee is reproduced in the appellate order, in which, the assessee briefly explained that he has income from salary, house property, business, long term capital gains

MOHAIR INVESTMENT AND TRADING COMPANY (P) LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4677/DEL/2009[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2015AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, Advocate and Bhavita Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Dam Kanunjna, Senior DR
Section 115Section 143Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 275(1)(a)

section 271(1)(c) of the Act was leviable. The penalty levied, therefore, calls for being deleted in its entirety.” 5. Ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below. 6. We have heard both the sides and perused the material on record. We find that the appellant is a private limited company, was, inter alia, engaged

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. AMANDEEP SINGH SRAN, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the appeal of the ld AO is allowed and CO of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2672/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Amandeep Singh Saran, Vs. Acit, B-53, B-1, Community Centre, Central Circle-4, Janakpuri, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Auvps5370E (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Vs. Amandeep Singh Saran, Central Circle-29, 7/73, Punjabi Bagh West New Delhi Pan: Auvps5370E

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Arora, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 69

271 (1) (c) of the Act. It is trite law that the voluntary disclosure does not release the Appellant-assessee from the mischief of penal proceedings. The law does not provide that when an assessee makes a voluntary disclosure of his concealed income, he had to be absolved from penalty. 9. We are of the view that the surrender

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. HARMENDER SINGH SRAN, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the appeal of the ld AO is allowed and CO of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2671/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Amandeep Singh Saran, Vs. Acit, B-53, B-1, Community Centre, Central Circle-4, Janakpuri, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Auvps5370E (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Vs. Amandeep Singh Saran, Central Circle-29, 7/73, Punjabi Bagh West New Delhi Pan: Auvps5370E

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Arora, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 69

271 (1) (c) of the Act. It is trite law that the voluntary disclosure does not release the Appellant-assessee from the mischief of penal proceedings. The law does not provide that when an assessee makes a voluntary disclosure of his concealed income, he had to be absolved from penalty. 9. We are of the view that the surrender