BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtAI 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.

870 results for “capital gains”+ Section 49(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,318Delhi870Chennai261Jaipur260Ahmedabad239Bangalore227Hyderabad175Chandigarh163Kolkata141Indore93Cochin88Raipur87Nagpur67Pune52Rajkot45Surat40Lucknow35Visakhapatnam31Guwahati24Cuttack22Amritsar22Jodhpur13Patna13Jabalpur11Varanasi7Agra6Dehradun6Allahabad5Ranchi3Panaji1

Key Topics

Addition to Income43Section 143(3)31Section 14724Section 14822Double Taxation/DTAA22Section 26319Disallowance18Section 143(2)14Section 43B14

ARUN SHUNGLOO TRUST

ITA/116/2011HC Delhi13 Feb 2012
Section 2Section 45Section 48Section 49(1)

49(1) Explanation and Explanation 1(i)(b) of Section 2 (42A), when all three sections relate to the same subject matter of computation of capital gains

SUPERB MIND HOLDING LTD. ,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE INT TAX 3(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1568/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1568/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19

Showing 1–20 of 870 · Page 1 of 44

...
Permanent Establishment14
Section 14A13
Section 69A12
Section 112Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

49. As early as on March 30, 1994, the CBDT had issued circular no.682 in which it had been emphasized that any resident of Mauritius deriving income from alienation of shares of an Indian company would be liable to capital gains tax only in Mauritius as per Mauritius tax law and would not have any capital gains tax liability

ESSAR COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED,MAURITIUS vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1 (2)(2), NEW DELHI

ITA 340/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Venkatraman, ASG
Section 250Section 253Section 6(3)

capital gains on the shares which were acquired in 2008 and sold in 2011, which is much before 1 April 2017, is unsustainable and bad in law. V. The Assessee is not a resident of India as its control & management is not situated wholly in India: a. Residential status of an assessee is required to be determined every year

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. KCT PAPERS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3380/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaacit, Circle 5 (1) Vs. M/S. Kct Papers Limited, New Delhi. Thapar House, 124, Janpath, New Delhi – 110 001. (Pan : Aacck4937D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate Shri Deepesh Jain, Advocate Shri Tavish Verma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kailash Dan Ratnoo, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.09.2025 Date Of Order : 05.12.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Viii, New Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 21.03.2014For Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, The Assessee Company Belongs To The Thapar Group Established By Late Lala Karam Chand Thapar. There Was A Family Settlement Between The Various Constituents Of The Karam Chand Thapar Family As A Result Of Which Revenue-Organization/Restructuring Of The Group Dated 27Th April, 2001. The Re April, 2001. The Re-Organization Of The Group Companies & Trusts Organization Of The Group Companies & Trusts Was Made Into Four Groups, As Under, Each Headed By The Sons Of Late Lala Was Made Into Four Groups, As Under, Each Headed By The Sons Of Late Lala Was Made Into Four Groups, As Under, Each Headed By The Sons Of Late Lala K.C. Thapar. The Family Tree Of Karam Chand T K.C. Thapar. The Family Tree Of Karam Chand Thapar Family Is Explained As Hapar Family Is Explained As Under In The Form Of A Diagrammatic Chart: Under In The Form Of A Diagrammatic Chart:

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Dan Ratnoo, CIT DR
Section 391

1,83,39,832) indexed cost of Rs.7,33,59,328} Long term capital gains offered to tax 3,36,25,904 40. In this regard, it is respectfully submitted that aforesaid long-term capital gains were computed by the assessee by taking cost to MAL & KCTBL as its cost of acquisition as per section 49

ITA Nos. 601/2011 & 602/2011 vs. ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.

The appeals are disposed of

ITA/601/2011HC Delhi19 Apr 2012
Section 260ASection 50

sections 48 and 49 shall be subject to the following modifications:-- (1) where the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer of the asset together with the full value of such consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer of any other capital asset falling within the block of assets during

ARYA SMAJ MODEL TOWN,DELHI vs. PCIT, CENTRAL -3, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 4805/DEL/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2025
For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 12(1)Section 127Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)

gains of\nbusiness which is not incidental to the attainment of its objectives or\nseparate books of account are not maintained by such trust or\ninstitution in respect of the business which is incidental to the\nattainment of its objectives; or\n\n(c) The trust or institution has applied any part of its income from\nthe property held under

ESSAR COM LIMITED,MAURITIUS vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2)(2), NEW DELHI

ITA 339/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Venkatraman, ASG
Section 253Section 6(3)

1 of 2023 and\nHomble Supreme Court on Azadi Bachao andolan\nmandate that the residential status deciding the\ntaxability governed by findings of facts\nPara 49 (page 180-181) ECL\nPara 49 (page 176-177)\nECOM\n12. Testing of residential status by the CIT(A) through\nexamination of the concept of control and\nmanagement of affairs under the factual matrix

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA/38/2002HC Delhi24 Sept 2015
Section 2Section 2(47)Section 260ASection 45Section 50

1 to Section 2 (47) in order to arrive at the conclusion there was indeed a 'transfer' of a capital asset brought about by the lease agreement in question. 44. The AO, the CIT (A) and the ITAT have relied on the decisions in Traders and Miners Ltd. (supra), A.R. Krishnamurthy (supra) and CIT v. Narang Diary Products

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA/132/2002HC Delhi24 Sept 2015
Section 2Section 2(47)Section 260ASection 45Section 50

1 to Section 2 (47) in order to arrive at the conclusion there was indeed a 'transfer' of a capital asset brought about by the lease agreement in question. 44. The AO, the CIT (A) and the ITAT have relied on the decisions in Traders and Miners Ltd. (supra), A.R. Krishnamurthy (supra) and CIT v. Narang Diary Products

NIKESH ARORA,GURGAON vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, GURGON

In the result, appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 1008/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: We Proceed To Deal With The Substantive Issues Arising

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 2

49(2AA) and section 17(2)(vi) of the Act is futile. 18. Learned Departmental Representative submitted, the date of acquisition of shares cannot be taken to be the Second Employment Agreement executed on 17.12.2014 as it is merely a draft agreement. He submitted, from the Third Employment Agreement executed on 20.05.2015 till the date of its transfer

SAKET KANOI,GURGAON vs. DCIT INTL. TAXATION, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3243/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Oct 2024AY 2021-22

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

For Appellant: Sh. Sunny Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

section 90(1) of IT Act which is reproduced below: "90(1) The Central Government may enter into an agreement with the Government of any country outside India or specified territory outside India,- (a) for the granting of relief in respect of- (i) income on which have been paid both income-tax under this Act and income-tax in that

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

Capital Gain/Short Term Capital Loss or any other sham transactions. " Similarly, the clarification for unlisted shares states: "It is, however, clarified that the above would not be necessarily applied in the situation where: (i) the genuineness of the transaction in unlisted shares itself is questionable; or (ii) the transfer of unlisted shares is related to an issue pertaining to lifting

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

Capital Gain/Short Term Capital Loss or any other sham transactions. " Similarly, the clarification for unlisted shares states: "It is, however, clarified that the above would not be necessarily applied in the situation where: (i) the genuineness of the transaction in unlisted shares itself is questionable; or (ii) the transfer of unlisted shares is related to an issue pertaining to lifting

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV vs. M/S. I. K. INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD

ITA/791/2011HC Delhi29 Mar 2012
Section 143(3)Section 45Section 50(2)Section 54E

capital gains are exempt under Section 54EC of the Act. 17. We are fortified in our conclusion by the judgment of the Madras High Court in CIT v. Dr. D. L. Ramachandra Rao, (1999) 236 ITR 1 and that of the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Citibank N.A., (2003) 261 ITR 570. We may also notice the judgment

ARUN DWIVEDI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-9(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6293/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2025AY 2014-15
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 54

49 of the paper book.\nAs per the details available on record, the property at N-1 Kailash Colony,\nNew Delhi was owned by Shri Shyama Pada Banerjee who according to\nthe assessee was sold by Shri Shyama Pada Banerjee to the assessee vide\nagreement to sell / 'Receipt' dated 21.02.2005 for a total consideration of\nRs.68,00,000/-(placed

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

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

49 (SC); Jeevan Lal Sah 205 ITR 244 (SC) and K.P.Madhusudanan 251 ITR 99(SC), it is well established that whenever there is difference between the returned and assessed income, there is inference of concealment. The explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act raises a presumption that can be rebutted by the assessee with reference to facts

CHANDER KALAN,DELHI vs. NEAC, DELHI

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

ITA 1619/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Ms Ishita Farsaiya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mithalesh Kr. Pandey, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 10(37)Section 28Section 45Section 56

49. As discussed hereinabove, Section 23(1-A)provides for additional amount. It takes care of the increase in the value at the rate of 12% per annum. Similarly, under Section 23(2) of the 1894 Act there is a provision for solatium which also represents part of the enhanced compensation. Similarly, Section 28 empowers the court in its discretion

(Now known as Sony India Limited)

ITA/16/2014HC Delhi16 Mar 2015

49 of 142 being: the price paid or charged for an international transaction has not been determined in accordance with sub-sections (1) and (2); information or documents relating to an international transaction has not been kept or maintained in accordance with the provisions of Section 92D(1) or the Rules; information or data used in computation

SMT. RITU SINGH,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6504/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Hiren Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Princy Singla, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 68

49,116/- (Rs. 33,21,868/- - 21,72,752/-) not deposited in capital gain account before the due date of filing return under section 139(1

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)

1) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.8,36,25,157/- made on account of Long Term Capital Gain. 2) The Ld. CIT(A) has ignored the fact that the assessee has not determined the capital gain per the Income Tax Act considering the handing over the possession of the property to the buyer