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.

22 results for “capital gains”+ Section 2(24)(x)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai488Delhi376Jaipur141Chandigarh112Kolkata71Ahmedabad69Chennai66Bangalore60Hyderabad59Raipur51Nagpur40Pune30Lucknow29Surat25Indore22Guwahati22Rajkot13Visakhapatnam7Cuttack7Jodhpur6Patna3Dehradun3Amritsar3Agra3Allahabad3Cochin2Varanasi1Ranchi1

Key Topics

Section 2506Section 44A5Section 143(3)5Section 80I5Depreciation5Disallowance5Addition to Income5Section 801E4Section 142(1)2

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH vs. VINOD BAMALWA, DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

ITA 66/GTY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati01 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

x) That the Assessee did not know the alleged operators of the company and had nothing to do with them. (xi) In rebuttal to the alleged circumstantial evidence/direct evidence against his claim of LTCG, the Assessee submitted as under: (a) With respect to the alleged statements of Sri Anil Khemka and Sri Rajendra Bubna, the Assessee categorically denied knowing them

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH vs. BAJRANG LAL BAMALWA, DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

ITA 52/GTY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati01 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

x) That the Assessee did not know the alleged operators of the company and had nothing to do with them. (xi) In rebuttal to the alleged circumstantial evidence/direct evidence against his claim of LTCG, the Assessee submitted as under: (a) With respect to the alleged statements of Sri Anil Khemka and Sri Rajendra Bubna, the Assessee categorically denied knowing them

Showing 1–20 of 22 · Page 1 of 2

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH vs. BACHH RAJ BAMALWA, DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

ITA 53/GTY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati01 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

x) That the Assessee did not know the alleged operators of the company and had nothing to do with them. (xi) In rebuttal to the alleged circumstantial evidence/direct evidence against his claim of LTCG, the Assessee submitted as under: (a) With respect to the alleged statements of Sri Anil Khemka and Sri Rajendra Bubna, the Assessee categorically denied knowing them

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH vs. BACHH RAJ BAMALWA, DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

ITA 54/GTY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati01 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

x) That the Assessee did not know the alleged operators of the company and had nothing to do with them. (xi) In rebuttal to the alleged circumstantial evidence/direct evidence against his claim of LTCG, the Assessee submitted as under: (a) With respect to the alleged statements of Sri Anil Khemka and Sri Rajendra Bubna, the Assessee categorically denied knowing them

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE- 1, DIBRUGARH vs. HANS RAJ BAMALWA, DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

ITA 55/GTY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati01 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

x) That the Assessee did not know the alleged operators of the company and had nothing to do with them. (xi) In rebuttal to the alleged circumstantial evidence/direct evidence against his claim of LTCG, the Assessee submitted as under: (a) With respect to the alleged statements of Sri Anil Khemka and Sri Rajendra Bubna, the Assessee categorically denied knowing them

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE- 1, DIBRUGARH vs. HANS RAJ BAMALWA (HUF), DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

ITA 56/GTY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati01 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

x) That the Assessee did not know the alleged operators of the company and had nothing to do with them. (xi) In rebuttal to the alleged circumstantial evidence/direct evidence against his claim of LTCG, the Assessee submitted as under: (a) With respect to the alleged statements of Sri Anil Khemka and Sri Rajendra Bubna, the Assessee categorically denied knowing them

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE- 1, DIBRUGARH vs. USHA BAMALWA, DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

ITA 57/GTY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati01 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

x) That the Assessee did not know the alleged operators of the company and had nothing to do with them. (xi) In rebuttal to the alleged circumstantial evidence/direct evidence against his claim of LTCG, the Assessee submitted as under: (a) With respect to the alleged statements of Sri Anil Khemka and Sri Rajendra Bubna, the Assessee categorically denied knowing them

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE- 1, DIBRUGARH vs. MEENAKSHI BAMALWA SONI, DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

ITA 58/GTY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati01 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

x) That the Assessee did not know the alleged operators of the company and had nothing to do with them. (xi) In rebuttal to the alleged circumstantial evidence/direct evidence against his claim of LTCG, the Assessee submitted as under: (a) With respect to the alleged statements of Sri Anil Khemka and Sri Rajendra Bubna, the Assessee categorically denied knowing them

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH vs. VINAY BAMALWA, DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

ITA 61/GTY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati01 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

x) That the Assessee did not know the alleged operators of the company and had nothing to do with them. (xi) In rebuttal to the alleged circumstantial evidence/direct evidence against his claim of LTCG, the Assessee submitted as under: (a) With respect to the alleged statements of Sri Anil Khemka and Sri Rajendra Bubna, the Assessee categorically denied knowing them

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH vs. RAVI BAMALWA, DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

ITA 62/GTY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati01 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

x) That the Assessee did not know the alleged operators of the company and had nothing to do with them. (xi) In rebuttal to the alleged circumstantial evidence/direct evidence against his claim of LTCG, the Assessee submitted as under: (a) With respect to the alleged statements of Sri Anil Khemka and Sri Rajendra Bubna, the Assessee categorically denied knowing them

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH vs. MADAN LAL BAMALWA, DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

ITA 63/GTY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati01 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

x) That the Assessee did not know the alleged operators of the company and had nothing to do with them. (xi) In rebuttal to the alleged circumstantial evidence/direct evidence against his claim of LTCG, the Assessee submitted as under: (a) With respect to the alleged statements of Sri Anil Khemka and Sri Rajendra Bubna, the Assessee categorically denied knowing them

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH vs. SHEETAL BAMALWA, DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

ITA 64/GTY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati01 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

x) That the Assessee did not know the alleged operators of the company and had nothing to do with them. (xi) In rebuttal to the alleged circumstantial evidence/direct evidence against his claim of LTCG, the Assessee submitted as under: (a) With respect to the alleged statements of Sri Anil Khemka and Sri Rajendra Bubna, the Assessee categorically denied knowing them

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH vs. PRAMOD KUMAR BAMALWA, DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

ITA 65/GTY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati01 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

x) That the Assessee did not know the alleged operators of the company and had nothing to do with them. (xi) In rebuttal to the alleged circumstantial evidence/direct evidence against his claim of LTCG, the Assessee submitted as under: (a) With respect to the alleged statements of Sri Anil Khemka and Sri Rajendra Bubna, the Assessee categorically denied knowing them

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH vs. BAJRANG LAL BAMALWA, DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

ITA 51/GTY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati01 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

x) That the Assessee did not know the alleged operators of the company and had nothing to do with them. (xi) In rebuttal to the alleged circumstantial evidence/direct evidence against his claim of LTCG, the Assessee submitted as under: (a) With respect to the alleged statements of Sri Anil Khemka and Sri Rajendra Bubna, the Assessee categorically denied knowing them

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE- 1, DIBRUGARH vs. BHAGWATI DEVII BAMALWA , DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

ITA 59/GTY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati01 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

x) That the Assessee did not know the alleged operators of the company and had nothing to do with them. (xi) In rebuttal to the alleged circumstantial evidence/direct evidence against his claim of LTCG, the Assessee submitted as under: (a) With respect to the alleged statements of Sri Anil Khemka and Sri Rajendra Bubna, the Assessee categorically denied knowing them

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE- 1, DIBRUGARH vs. VISHAL BAMALWA , DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

ITA 60/GTY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati01 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

x) That the Assessee did not know the alleged operators of the company and had nothing to do with them. (xi) In rebuttal to the alleged circumstantial evidence/direct evidence against his claim of LTCG, the Assessee submitted as under: (a) With respect to the alleged statements of Sri Anil Khemka and Sri Rajendra Bubna, the Assessee categorically denied knowing them

PLASCOM INDUSTRIES LLP,KOLKATA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), GUWAHATI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 280/GTY/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati02 Mar 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: S.M. Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sanjay Jha, JCIT
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 250Section 801ESection 801E(3)Section 801E(4)Section 801E(5)Section 801E(6)Section 80I

24,40,20,802/- i.e. Rs. 2,44,02,080/- was proposed to be added back and reduced from the deduction claimed u/s 80IE of the Act towards undervaluation of purchase & sales from unrelated parties. 5. Further, it was observed that the assessee has taken loan of Rs. 1,86,08,294/- from partner Mr. Mahendra Kumar Agarwal and from

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 37/GTY/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Guwahati05 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44A

Section 153A of the Act for the AY 2017-18, AY 2018-19 and AY 2019-20, shall be treated as the Returns of Income filed u/s 139(1). (ii) That, the Audit Reports in Form-10CCB [as referred u/s Section 80-IA(7) of the Act] which were furnished by the Assessee within the time limit as given

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 38/GTY/2022[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Guwahati05 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44A

Section 153A of the Act for the AY 2017-18, AY 2018-19 and AY 2019-20, shall be treated as the Returns of Income filed u/s 139(1). (ii) That, the Audit Reports in Form-10CCB [as referred u/s Section 80-IA(7) of the Act] which were furnished by the Assessee within the time limit as given

ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 43/GTY/2022[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Guwahati05 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44A

Section 153A of the Act for the AY 2017-18, AY 2018-19 and AY 2019-20, shall be treated as the Returns of Income filed u/s 139(1). (ii) That, the Audit Reports in Form-10CCB [as referred u/s Section 80-IA(7) of the Act] which were furnished by the Assessee within the time limit as given