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.

691 results for “reassessment”+ Long Term Capital Gainsclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,008Delhi691Jaipur365Chennai338Bangalore294Ahmedabad263Kolkata180Hyderabad122Chandigarh101Indore84Pune79Raipur72Surat63Nagpur43Guwahati43Lucknow42Visakhapatnam37Cochin36Rajkot33Amritsar25Patna19Agra18Ranchi17Karnataka15Jodhpur12Cuttack10Telangana6Allahabad5Varanasi5Jabalpur4Dehradun3Kerala3SC3Calcutta3Panaji1Gauhati1Rajasthan1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 147115Section 14884Addition to Income75Section 153A74Section 143(3)53Section 6846Reassessment38Long Term Capital Gains37Reopening of Assessment25Section 263

MILAN SAINI,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2 , GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2335/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Milan Saini, Vs. Dcit, 37, Centrum Plaza, Dlf Golf Circle-2. Course Road, Sector 53, Gurgaon Gurgaon (Haryana) Pan: Braps1366P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 17Section 250(6)Section 28

reassess the case of Mr. Deepak Marda which was quashed by the Bombay High Court (refer pages 420-431 of the paperbook). Being so, the assessment of identical compensation as long-term capital gains

Showing 1–20 of 691 · Page 1 of 35

...
23
Capital Gains19
Section 143(2)15

ANANT RAJ LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed partly as indicated above

ITA 4736/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Goel, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, CA; Ms
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50

Long term capital gain @ 20% and excess depreciation was claimed. 9. The assessee submitted a letter dated 20/04/2015 to treat the original return of income as return of income filed in response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act. 10. However, during the course of reassessment

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), NEW DELHI vs. ANANT RAJ LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed partly as indicated above

ITA 5237/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Goel, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, CA; Ms
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50

Long term capital gain @ 20% and excess depreciation was claimed. 9. The assessee submitted a letter dated 20/04/2015 to treat the original return of income as return of income filed in response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act. 10. However, during the course of reassessment

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), NEW DELHI vs. ANANT RAJ LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed partly as indicated above

ITA 5238/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Goel, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, CA; Ms
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50

Long term capital gain @ 20% and excess depreciation was claimed. 9. The assessee submitted a letter dated 20/04/2015 to treat the original return of income as return of income filed in response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act. 10. However, during the course of reassessment

RAMOTAR SINGH HUF,REWARI vs. ITO, WARD- 2, REWARI

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

ITA 3933/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2012-13 Ramotar Singh, Huf, Vs Ito, Rewari Ward-2, C/O Naresh Singh Chauhan, Advocate, Rewari. 1035-P, Sector-3, Part Ii, Near Ganeshi Lal Dharmshala, Rewari, Haryana. Pan: Aashr5279J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate. Revenue By : Ms Rakhi Vimal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.07.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.08.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(14)Section 45

long-term capital gain, also challenged the validity of such reassessment proceedings. However, the ld.CIT(A) upheld the validity of reassessment

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

long-term capital gain made through penny stock amounting to ₹ 5643085/– for F Y 2010 – 11 corresponding to AY 2011 – 12. Thus, the above sum was added to the income of the assessee. The returned income of the assessee of ₹ 7 422010/– was assessed at ₹ 1 3065094/–. 11. Aggrieved by the order of the learned assessing officer, assessee preferred

DR. PRANNOY ROY,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 2022/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Girish Dave, Adv
Section 147Section 148

reassessment proceedings are correctly initiated, whether the shares held by the assessee in the joint demat account are short-term capital asset or long-term capital asset and what is the ‘cost of acquisition’ and ‘period of holding’ of those shares for computation of capital gain

SMT. RADHIKA ROY,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 2019/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Girish Dave, Adv
Section 147Section 148

reassessment proceedings are correctly initiated, whether the shares held by the assessee in the joint demat account are short-term capital asset or long-term capital asset and what is the ‘cost of acquisition’ and ‘period of holding’ of those shares for computation of capital gain

DR. PRANNOY ROY,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 2021/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Girish Dave, Adv
Section 147Section 148

reassessment proceedings are correctly initiated, whether the shares held by the assessee in the joint demat account are short-term capital asset or long-term capital asset and what is the ‘cost of acquisition’ and ‘period of holding’ of those shares for computation of capital gain

SMT. RADHIKA ROY,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 2020/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Girish Dave, Adv
Section 147Section 148

reassessment proceedings are correctly initiated, whether the shares held by the assessee in the joint demat account are short-term capital asset or long-term capital asset and what is the ‘cost of acquisition’ and ‘period of holding’ of those shares for computation of capital gain

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. DR. PRANNOY ROY, NEW DELHI

ITA 2707/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Girish Dave, Adv
Section 147Section 148

reassessment proceedings are correctly initiated, whether the shares held by the assessee in the joint demat account are short-term capital asset or long-term capital asset and what is the ‘cost of acquisition’ and ‘period of holding’ of those shares for computation of capital gain

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. MRS. RADHIKA ROY, NEW DELHI

ITA 2706/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Girish Dave, Adv
Section 147Section 148

reassessment proceedings are correctly initiated, whether the shares held by the assessee in the joint demat account are short-term capital asset or long-term capital asset and what is the ‘cost of acquisition’ and ‘period of holding’ of those shares for computation of capital gain

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

gain in various companies. Accordingly, he dismissed the appeals of the assessee. The appeal with respect to the appellant are dealt with at page number 458- 477 of the appellate order vide para number 148 – 165 of the order. Therefore, assessee aggrieved with the order of the learned CIT- A has preferred an appeal before us. 10. Before commencing

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

gain in various companies. Accordingly, he dismissed the appeals of the assessee. The appeal with respect to the appellant are dealt with at page number 458- 477 of the appellate order vide para number 148 – 165 of the order. Therefore, assessee aggrieved with the order of the learned CIT- A has preferred an appeal before us. 10. Before commencing

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

Long Term Capital Gain. 31. The AO further observed that a search and seizure operation was conducted in the case of Sh. Rajendra Jain Group, Sh. Sanjay Choudhary Group and Sh. Dharmchand Jain Group on 03.10.2013 wherein the investigation conducted had proved that the above mentioned persons were engaged in providing accommodation entries to various beneficiaries and assessee was also

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

Long Term Capital Gain. 31. The AO further observed that a search and seizure operation was conducted in the case of Sh. Rajendra Jain Group, Sh. Sanjay Choudhary Group and Sh. Dharmchand Jain Group on 03.10.2013 wherein the investigation conducted had proved that the above mentioned persons were engaged in providing accommodation entries to various beneficiaries and assessee was also

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

Long Term Capital Gain. 31. The AO further observed that a search and seizure operation was conducted in the case of Sh. Rajendra Jain Group, Sh. Sanjay Choudhary Group and Sh. Dharmchand Jain Group on 03.10.2013 wherein the investigation conducted had proved that the above mentioned persons were engaged in providing accommodation entries to various beneficiaries and assessee was also

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

Long Term Capital Gain. 31. The AO further observed that a search and seizure operation was conducted in the case of Sh. Rajendra Jain Group, Sh. Sanjay Choudhary Group and Sh. Dharmchand Jain Group on 03.10.2013 wherein the investigation conducted had proved that the above mentioned persons were engaged in providing accommodation entries to various beneficiaries and assessee was also

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

Long Term Capital Gain. 31. The AO further observed that a search and seizure operation was conducted in the case of Sh. Rajendra Jain Group, Sh. Sanjay Choudhary Group and Sh. Dharmchand Jain Group on 03.10.2013 wherein the investigation conducted had proved that the above mentioned persons were engaged in providing accommodation entries to various beneficiaries and assessee was also

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

Long Term Capital Gain. 31. The AO further observed that a search and seizure operation was conducted in the case of Sh. Rajendra Jain Group, Sh. Sanjay Choudhary Group and Sh. Dharmchand Jain Group on 03.10.2013 wherein the investigation conducted had proved that the above mentioned persons were engaged in providing accommodation entries to various beneficiaries and assessee was also