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.

287 results for “capital gains”+ Survey u/s 133Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai423Delhi287Jaipur232Bangalore181Hyderabad147Chennai109Kolkata77Surat74Pune61Ahmedabad56Chandigarh54Visakhapatnam52Indore51Rajkot50Guwahati26Cuttack23Amritsar23Nagpur21Cochin15Lucknow12Patna5Karnataka4Raipur4Dehradun3Jodhpur3Allahabad3Ranchi2Panaji2Jabalpur1Agra1Telangana1

Key Topics

Section 14782Addition to Income46Section 14835Section 143(3)30Section 153A25Survey u/s 133A22Section 133A21Section 6819Section 69A18Reassessment

UMA SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRL CIRCLE-3, NEW DELHI

ITA 1484/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S S Rana CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 143Section 153ASection 250Section 68

133A in course of search/ survey action in their cases. The Assessees herein have from the very inception consistently denied any relationship/ linkage/ dealings with Sri R.K. Kedia or Sri Manish Arora or any of the alleged entry operators/exit providers or directors of penny stock companies. As noted in para 4.11, page 102-103 of the assessment order

Showing 1–20 of 287 · Page 1 of 15

...
17
Section 13214
Capital Gains11

RITU SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 3, NEW DELHI

ITA 1481/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2018AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S S Rana CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 143Section 153ASection 250Section 68

133A in course of search/ survey action in their cases. The Assessees herein have from the very inception consistently denied any relationship/ linkage/ dealings with Sri R.K. Kedia or Sri Manish Arora or any of the alleged entry operators/exit providers or directors of penny stock companies. As noted in para 4.11, page 102-103 of the assessment order

RITU SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 3, NEW DELHI

ITA 1476/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Sh. K. N. Charyita No. 1412/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 1413/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 1414/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Sh. Brij Bhushan Singal, Vs Acit, W-29, Greater Kailash, Part-Ii, Central Circle-3, New Delhi-110048 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aefps6298M

For Appellant: Sh. S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

u/s 133A of the Act was conducted at the residence of Sh. Bikash Sureka. During the course of survey, it came to the notice that the premises was within the complex of Kolkata Stock Exchange and was being run by Sh. Bikash Sureka, who was controlling some of the companies by introducing his employees as dummy directors in those companies

NEERAJ SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 3, NEW DELHI

ITA 1485/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Sh. K. N. Charyita No. 1412/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 1413/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 1414/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Sh. Brij Bhushan Singal, Vs Acit, W-29, Greater Kailash, Part-Ii, Central Circle-3, New Delhi-110048 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aefps6298M

For Appellant: Sh. S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

u/s 133A of the Act was conducted at the residence of Sh. Bikash Sureka. During the course of survey, it came to the notice that the premises was within the complex of Kolkata Stock Exchange and was being run by Sh. Bikash Sureka, who was controlling some of the companies by introducing his employees as dummy directors in those companies

BRIJ BHUSHAN SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 3, NEW DELHI

ITA 1413/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Sh. K. N. Charyita No. 1412/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 1413/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 1414/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Sh. Brij Bhushan Singal, Vs Acit, W-29, Greater Kailash, Part-Ii, Central Circle-3, New Delhi-110048 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aefps6298M

For Appellant: Sh. S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

u/s 133A of the Act was conducted at the residence of Sh. Bikash Sureka. During the course of survey, it came to the notice that the premises was within the complex of Kolkata Stock Exchange and was being run by Sh. Bikash Sureka, who was controlling some of the companies by introducing his employees as dummy directors in those companies

UMA SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRL CIRCLE-3, NEW DELHI

ITA 1482/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Sh. K. N. Charyita No. 1412/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 1413/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 1414/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Sh. Brij Bhushan Singal, Vs Acit, W-29, Greater Kailash, Part-Ii, Central Circle-3, New Delhi-110048 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aefps6298M

For Appellant: Sh. S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

u/s 133A of the Act was conducted at the residence of Sh. Bikash Sureka. During the course of survey, it came to the notice that the premises was within the complex of Kolkata Stock Exchange and was being run by Sh. Bikash Sureka, who was controlling some of the companies by introducing his employees as dummy directors in those companies

BRIJ BHUSHAN SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 3, NEW DELHI

ITA 1414/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Sh. K. N. Charyita No. 1412/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 1413/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 1414/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Sh. Brij Bhushan Singal, Vs Acit, W-29, Greater Kailash, Part-Ii, Central Circle-3, New Delhi-110048 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aefps6298M

For Appellant: Sh. S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

u/s 133A of the Act was conducted at the residence of Sh. Bikash Sureka. During the course of survey, it came to the notice that the premises was within the complex of Kolkata Stock Exchange and was being run by Sh. Bikash Sureka, who was controlling some of the companies by introducing his employees as dummy directors in those companies

BRIJ BHUSHAN SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 3, NEW DELHI

ITA 1412/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Sh. K. N. Charyita No. 1412/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 1413/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 1414/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Sh. Brij Bhushan Singal, Vs Acit, W-29, Greater Kailash, Part-Ii, Central Circle-3, New Delhi-110048 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aefps6298M

For Appellant: Sh. S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

u/s 133A of the Act was conducted at the residence of Sh. Bikash Sureka. During the course of survey, it came to the notice that the premises was within the complex of Kolkata Stock Exchange and was being run by Sh. Bikash Sureka, who was controlling some of the companies by introducing his employees as dummy directors in those companies

B.R. ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4966/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 10Section 132Section 153ASection 2(22)Section 234ASection 68

capital gain through stock broker M/s P.K. Aggarwal & Co. On cross examination by Shri. Jindal, he confirmed that he had not received any cash from him. He also confirmed that he had never introduced M/s P.K. Aggarwal & Co. and Shri. Santosh Shah to the assessee. And at the end, Shri. I.C. Jindal surrendered Rupees fifty one crores

B.R. ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4964/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 10Section 132Section 153ASection 2(22)Section 234ASection 68

capital gain through stock broker M/s P.K. Aggarwal & Co. On cross examination by Shri. Jindal, he confirmed that he had not received any cash from him. He also confirmed that he had never introduced M/s P.K. Aggarwal & Co. and Shri. Santosh Shah to the assessee. And at the end, Shri. I.C. Jindal surrendered Rupees fifty one crores

B.R. ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4965/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 10Section 132Section 153ASection 2(22)Section 234ASection 68

capital gain through stock broker M/s P.K. Aggarwal & Co. On cross examination by Shri. Jindal, he confirmed that he had not received any cash from him. He also confirmed that he had never introduced M/s P.K. Aggarwal & Co. and Shri. Santosh Shah to the assessee. And at the end, Shri. I.C. Jindal surrendered Rupees fifty one crores

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. NITIN KEDAR NATH GUPTA

ITA/706/2008HC Delhi31 Aug 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 132Section 260A

133A of the Act in the premises of M/s. Ravinder Properties of Andheria Mor, New Delhi. A sworn statement was recorded from Ravinder Sharma, the proprietor of Ravinder Properties, in which he had “graphically described” that Rjender Gupta had negotiated the sale of KG Farms for `3.10 crores to one Darshan Kumar Khosla and that the document was registered with

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ROHIT KEDAR NATH GUPTA

ITA/707/2008HC Delhi31 Aug 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 132Section 260A

133A of the Act in the premises of M/s. Ravinder Properties of Andheria Mor, New Delhi. A sworn statement was recorded from Ravinder Sharma, the proprietor of Ravinder Properties, in which he had “graphically described” that Rjender Gupta had negotiated the sale of KG Farms for `3.10 crores to one Darshan Kumar Khosla and that the document was registered with

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ASHA KEDAR NATH GUPTA

ITA/948/2008HC Delhi31 Aug 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 132Section 260A

133A of the Act in the premises of M/s. Ravinder Properties of Andheria Mor, New Delhi. A sworn statement was recorded from Ravinder Sharma, the proprietor of Ravinder Properties, in which he had “graphically described” that Rjender Gupta had negotiated the sale of KG Farms for `3.10 crores to one Darshan Kumar Khosla and that the document was registered with

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI vs. MANI KAKKAR

ITA/892/2008HC Delhi31 Aug 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 132Section 260A

133A of the Act in the premises of M/s. Ravinder Properties of Andheria Mor, New Delhi. A sworn statement was recorded from Ravinder Sharma, the proprietor of Ravinder Properties, in which he had “graphically described” that Rjender Gupta had negotiated the sale of KG Farms for `3.10 crores to one Darshan Kumar Khosla and that the document was registered with

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

ITA/713/2008HC Delhi31 Aug 2012
Section 132Section 260A

133A of the Act in the premises of M/s. Ravinder Properties of Andheria Mor, New Delhi. A sworn statement was recorded from Ravinder Sharma, the proprietor of Ravinder Properties, in which he had “graphically described” that Rjender Gupta had negotiated the sale of KG Farms for `3.10 crores to one Darshan Kumar Khosla and that the document was registered with

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. KEDAR NATH GUPTA

ITA-713/2008HC Delhi31 Aug 2012
Section 132Section 260A

133A of the Act in the premises of M/s. Ravinder Properties of Andheria Mor, New Delhi. A sworn statement was recorded from Ravinder Sharma, the proprietor of Ravinder Properties, in which he had “graphically described” that Rjender Gupta had negotiated the sale of KG Farms for `3.10 crores to one Darshan Kumar Khosla and that the document was registered with

SANJAY KAUL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-24(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1593/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69CSection 70

Survey operation u/s 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 19-05-2015 at the office of M/s Kailash Auto Finance Pvt. Ltd. at 32/33, Gopal Bhavan, 2nd floor, 199, Princess Street, Mumbai-400002, statement of Mr. Dipan Patel registered office of Kailash Auto Finance Limited. Please go through the statement ant) offer your comment. Ans. Sir, I have

CAIRN UK HOLDING LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 5 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1669/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Puri CIT
Section 143(3)Section 144

survey under section 133A of the Income Tax Act by the revenue on 15/01/2014. The fact was also noted that revenue has invoked provisions of section 281B of the act provisionally attaching the shares to safeguard its interest. Regarding the claim of assessee that these transactions were already disclosed to revenue, he held that appellant has not filed any return

ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), NEW DELHI vs. ARIHANT KUMAR JAIN, NEW DELHI

ITA 5342/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Dubey, Senior DR
Section 10(38)Section 133ASection 143Section 68

survey proceedings u/s 133A of the Act, Chairman & Managing Director and other Directors of M/s. Kappac Pharma Limited have got recorded their statement on oath that they have provided accommodation bogus LTCG. During investigation carried out by the Directorate of Income-tax (Inv.), Kolkata, statements of Shri Alok Harlalka, Shri Sanjay Vora, Shri Jai Kishan Poddar, Shri Rakesh Somani & Shri