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.

1,187 results for “capital gains”+ Undisclosed Incomeclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,324Delhi1,187Jaipur594Chennai381Kolkata380Bangalore324Hyderabad281Ahmedabad277Surat172Indore164Pune160Chandigarh132Cochin128Nagpur93Rajkot74Raipur61Visakhapatnam59Amritsar55Cuttack49Calcutta46Guwahati40Lucknow37Ranchi35Patna29Agra28Karnataka22Jodhpur21Dehradun16Panaji14Allahabad14Jabalpur8Telangana6Varanasi5SC4Orissa2Rajasthan1Punjab & Haryana1Kerala1Gauhati1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Addition to Income74Section 153A50Section 14731Section 6831Section 143(3)31Section 69A28Long Term Capital Gains28Section 143(2)24Section 10(38)23

SMT. SHOBHA SARDANA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4978/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri K.N. Charyassessment Year: 2010-11 Smt. Shobha Sardana, Vs. Dcit, C/O-M/S. Rra Taxindia, D- Central Circle-I, 28, South Extension, Part-1, Faridabad New Delhi. Pan :Abaps9735M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Dr. Rakesh Gupta & Sh. Somil Aggarwal, Advocates Respondent By Sh. S.S. Rana, Cit(Dr)

Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271A

undisclosed income. However, she did not specify how she derived that income and what head it fell in (rent, capital gain

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S ASCOT INVESTMENTS, NEW DELHI

In the result this ground is dismissed

Showing 1–20 of 1,187 · Page 1 of 60

...
Section 271(1)(c)23
Capital Gains20
Search & Seizure18
ITA 657/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava:

For Appellant: ShriVed Jain AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Jain CIT(DR) &
Section 153CSection 48

capital gain has to be added to the business income of the assessee. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the grounds of appeal”. 9. Vide ground nos. 1 to 6 the assessee has challenged the initiation of proceedings u/s 153C. The main contention of assessee is that since no incriminating material was found

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

undisclosed income. However, she did not specify how she derived that income and what head it fell in (rent, capital gain

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

undisclosed income. However, she did not specify how she derived that income and what head it fell in (rent, capital gain

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 in shares to evade tax and to bring to books their undisclosed income in the garb of exempt

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 in shares to evade tax and to bring to books their undisclosed income in the garb of exempt

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 in shares to evade tax and to bring to books their undisclosed income in the garb of exempt

UDAY KUMAR VAISH,NEW DELHI vs. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5700/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Lalit Kumar, Jm Ita No. 5700/Del/2014 : Asstt. Years : 2009-10 Uday Kumar Vaish, Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, 52/79, Ramjas Road, Karol Bagh, Central-Ii, New Delhi-110005 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaipv1716G Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta & Somil Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Kartar Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.11.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 06.03.2014 Of Ld. Cit, Central-Ii, New Delhi U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Act).

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta & Somil Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Kartar Singh, CIT DR
Section 263

capital gain filed along with the return of income, then it further explains the source of unaccounted payment of consideration of purchase of property bearing no. 56/7, DG Gupta Road, hence, no addition pertaining to undisclosed

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M.S.AGGARWAL

ITA - 169 / 2005HC Delhi23 Apr 2018
Section 132Section 158Section 260

Capital Plastic. On page -7 LHS there is on entry of Advista 150 it means Rs. 1,50,000 have been received from Advistas 150 it means Rs.1,50,000 have been received from Advistas. Annexure A-39 This probably relates to the details of payments made for purchases which have not been reflected in my regular books of a/cs

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

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in confirming deletion of addition of `19,35,769/- on account of undisclosed capital gains

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

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in confirming deletion of addition of `19,35,769/- on account of undisclosed capital gains

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

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in confirming deletion of addition of `19,35,769/- on account of undisclosed capital gains

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

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in confirming deletion of addition of `19,35,769/- on account of undisclosed capital gains

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. KEDAR NATH GUPTA

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

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in confirming deletion of addition of `19,35,769/- on account of undisclosed capital gains

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in confirming deletion of addition of `19,35,769/- on account of undisclosed capital gains

SURESH KUMAR AGGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 8703/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jun 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishia Y 2011-12 Appellant Respondent Shri Suresh Kumar Agarwal The Assistant Commissioner Of 154, Deepali Enclave Vs. Income Tax Pitampura Central Circle -25 New Delhi New Delhi Pan :- Abvpk1318H ( Appellant ) ( Respondent ) Date Of Hearing 17-06-2020 Date Of Order 29.06.2020 Present For Assessee Shri Gautam Jain , Advocate Present For Income Tax Department :- Shri Saras Kumar Senior Departmental Representative O R D E R

Section 143Section 148Section 68

undisclosed income in the garb of long-term capital gain. The gain is accordingly to be assessed as undisclosed credit

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MAHAJAN INDUSTRIES P. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 6295/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Kumar Bhoot, CIT- DRFor Respondent: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. Adv
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

undisclosed income under the head “profits and gains of business 7 and profession” was assessed at Rs. 31 crores and as per the relevant para 2 of the assessment order, the same was accrued to the assessee out of agreement transferred of 25% development rights to M/s MIPL. Therefore, the same cannot be treated as long term capital

GAURAV AGGARWAL,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 60 (5 ), NEW DELHI

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 1234/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishishri Gaurav Aggarwal, Income Tax Officer, Flat No. 12, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Ward 60 (5) Sheel Tara House, New Delhi. 4866/24,Ansari Road, Daryaganj New Delhi – 110 002. Pan : Agepa3001F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Takyar, Sr. D. R
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

undisclosed income in the garb of long term capital gain ", Relevant portion of judgement: The authorities have recorded a clearfinding

SACHIN KANODIA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 42(2), NEW DELHI

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 9504/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 142(2)Section 143(2)Section 2Section 68Section 69C

undisclosed income in the garb of long term capital gain. While so observing, the authorities held that the assessee had not tendered

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

capital gain at\nRs.17,13,051/- by denying exemption u/s 54 in sheer\ndisregard of evidences filed before both AO and first\nappellate authority.\n3. Ld. CIT(A)-3 has erred in law and on facts by confirming\nthe action of AO by assessing a sum of Rs.8666666/-\n(difference of stamp value and actual sale consideration)\nas undisclosed income