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.

7 results for “capital gains”+ Section 249(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai260Delhi103Ahmedabad66Jaipur58Chennai51Chandigarh47Bangalore42Pune31Nagpur30Kolkata29Raipur29Hyderabad26Indore21Ranchi15Cochin11Guwahati7Surat7Jodhpur6Visakhapatnam6Jabalpur6Amritsar4Lucknow4Dehradun4Patna3Rajkot2Panaji2Allahabad1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)13Section 25012Section 271(1)(c)12Section 14812Addition to Income7Section 1476Capital Gains4Penny Stock3Penalty3

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI vs. SHRI PANNALAL BHANSALI, GUWAHATI

In the result, appeal of the revenue as well as the Cross

ITA 428/GTY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati31 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17

For Respondent: Shri P. S. Thuingaleng, ACIT
Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

3. On the first issue relating to unsubstantiated increase in the capital of the assessee, Ld. AO noted the sharp rise amounting to Rs.23,26,96,302/- out of which assessee has shown an amount of Rs.13,42,97,642/- as capital brought in. In this respect, assessee has furnished a list of assets in the form of debtors/deposit/advance

M/S. SEEMA HOLDING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE -1, GUWAHATI

Reopening of Assessment3
Set Off of Losses3

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 67/GTY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati01 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 67/Gty/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Seema Holding Pvt. Ltd. I.T.O. Ward-15(2), Kolkata Vs [Now, Acit, Central Circle-1, 89, Muktaram Babu Street Guwahati] Kolkata - 700007 [Pan : Aadcs5209H] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhary, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Chandan Dutta, D/R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

section 147 of the Act, as the reopening is beyond 4 years from the original assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act. As, we have discussed and decided the legal issue in favour of the assessee and the re-assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, itself has attained nullity, the grounds on merits are only academic

M/S. SEEMA HOLDING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE -1, GUWAHATI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 68/GTY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati01 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 67/Gty/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Seema Holding Pvt. Ltd. I.T.O. Ward-15(2), Kolkata Vs [Now, Acit, Central Circle-1, 89, Muktaram Babu Street Guwahati] Kolkata - 700007 [Pan : Aadcs5209H] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhary, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Chandan Dutta, D/R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

section 147 of the Act, as the reopening is beyond 4 years from the original assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act. As, we have discussed and decided the legal issue in favour of the assessee and the re-assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, itself has attained nullity, the grounds on merits are only academic

M/S. SEEMA HOLDING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE -1, GUWAHATI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 69/GTY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati01 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 67/Gty/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Seema Holding Pvt. Ltd. I.T.O. Ward-15(2), Kolkata Vs [Now, Acit, Central Circle-1, 89, Muktaram Babu Street Guwahati] Kolkata - 700007 [Pan : Aadcs5209H] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhary, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Chandan Dutta, D/R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

section 147 of the Act, as the reopening is beyond 4 years from the original assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act. As, we have discussed and decided the legal issue in favour of the assessee and the re-assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, itself has attained nullity, the grounds on merits are only academic

VIVEK AGARWAL,TINSUKIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, TINSUKIA

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 204/GTY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati25 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A). Needless to say, the assessee is aggrieved by the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer in all the three matters and has challenged the imposition of penalty in ITA No. 227 & 228/Gty/2024. He has also challenged the treatment of LTCG as bogus in the case of ITA No. 204/Gty/2018. For the A.Y. 2014-15 (ITA No. 204/Gty/2018) the assessee has filed revised grounds of appeal which deserve to be extracted for reference:

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Capital Gains (LTCG) claimed on account of certain penny stocks which were under adverse notice by the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department. The LTCG claimed was disallowed by treating it as bogus and thereafter penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was also levied. Regarding the A.Y. 2013-14 (ITA No. 227/Gty/2024) also, the LTCG claimed

VIVEK AGARWAL,GURGAON vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, TINSUKIA

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 227/GTY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati25 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A). Needless to say, the assessee is aggrieved by the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer in all the three matters and has challenged the imposition of penalty in ITA No. 227 & 228/Gty/2024. He has also challenged the treatment of LTCG as bogus in the case of ITA No. 204/Gty/2018. For the A.Y. 2014-15 (ITA No. 204/Gty/2018) the assessee has filed revised grounds of appeal which deserve to be extracted for reference:

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Capital Gains (LTCG) claimed on account of certain penny stocks which were under adverse notice by the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department. The LTCG claimed was disallowed by treating it as bogus and thereafter penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was also levied. Regarding the A.Y. 2013-14 (ITA No. 227/Gty/2024) also, the LTCG claimed

VIVEK AGARWAL,GURGAON vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, TINSUKIA

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 228/GTY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati25 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Capital Gains (LTCG) claimed on account of certain penny stocks which were under adverse notice by the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department. The LTCG claimed was disallowed by treating it as bogus and thereafter penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was also levied. Regarding the A.Y. 2013-14 (ITA No. 227/Gty/2024) also, the LTCG claimed