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.

31 results for “capital gains”+ Section 250clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,126Delhi1,061Kolkata509Bangalore507Chennai469Ahmedabad424Jaipur399Surat257Hyderabad233Pune222Chandigarh180Cochin138Indore130Karnataka114Amritsar90Rajkot87Panaji84Visakhapatnam75Nagpur69Raipur67Patna66Calcutta54Cuttack53Lucknow50Agra40Guwahati31Dehradun27Jodhpur26Ranchi21Jabalpur14Allahabad14Telangana10Varanasi10SC9Rajasthan3Gauhati1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 25034Addition to Income26Section 143(3)24Section 6823Section 143(1)19Section 153A18Section 14817Section 271(1)(c)15Section 80I13Disallowance

INDER CHAND SAND,SILCHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, SILCHAR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA

ITA 49/GTY/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati23 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

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

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the “Act”) by ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Shillong [in short ld. “CIT(A)”] dated 29.11.2019 arising out of the assessment orders framed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 26.12.2017 & 22.12.2017, respectively. 2. The captioned appeals have been listed for hearing on various dates but there is no response

SAROJ DEVI SAND,SILCHAR vs. INCOEM TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, SILCHAR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA

ITA 51/GTY/2020[2015-16]Status: Disposed

Showing 1–20 of 31 · Page 1 of 2

13
Capital Gains10
Unexplained Cash Credit6
ITAT Guwahati
23 Dec 2022
AY 2015-16

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

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the “Act”) by ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Shillong [in short ld. “CIT(A)”] dated 29.11.2019 arising out of the assessment orders framed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 26.12.2017 & 22.12.2017, respectively. 2. The captioned appeals have been listed for hearing on various dates but there is no response

DEVENDER KUMAR PRASHAR,DELHI vs. ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 176/GTY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati25 Feb 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Also, The Assessee Could Not Succeed On The Basis Of The Following Findings:

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter ‘the Act’). 1.1 In this case, the main grievance of the assessee is regarding the enhancement of capital gain

SMT. SANTOSH BAMALWA,DIBRUGARH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH

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

ITA 348/GTY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rajesh Kumarsmt. Santosh Bamalwa Acit, Circle-1 C/O A.K. Varma, Ground Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Mahalaya Road, Dibrugarh- Milan Nagar, Dibrugarh-786003, 786001, Assam Assam (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aedpb9900P Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing: 09/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 13/03/2026 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani, Addl
Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

250/- which was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. The case of the assessee was reopened under Section 147 of the Act by issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act on 26/03/2018 which was complied with by the assessee by filing return of income on 20/04/2018. Thereafter, statutory notices alongwith questionnaire were issued and duly complied with

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

section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 6.4. Ld. CIT(A) granted relief by observing that the transactions tabulated above in respect of increase in capital were substantially entered into by the assessee with the respective parties, prior to the first date of the relevant previous year. Since there is no fresh credit during the year in the books

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH, DIBRUGARH vs. SANTOSH BAMALWA, DIBRUGARH

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross- objection filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 104/GTY/2023[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Guwahati13 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 104/Gty/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Smt. Santosh Bamalwa Tax, Circle-1, Dibrugarh Vs Ground Floor Mahalaya Road C/O A.K. Varma Dibrugarh - 786001 [Pan: Aedpb9900P] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) C.O. No. 34/Gty/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Smt. Santosh Bamalwa Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1, Dibrugarh Vs Ground Floor Mahalaya Road C/O A.K. Varma Dibrugarh - 786001 [Pan: Aedpb9900P] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Arun Bhowmick, Jcit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/11/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/12/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Filed By The Revenue & The Cross-Objection Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Central, North-East Region, Guwahati (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 14/07/2023, Passed U/S

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arun Bhowmick, JCIT, D/R
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act’), for Assessment Year 2012- 13. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition to the tune of Rs.4,76,18,448/- on the ground that no incriminating documents

PANKAJ KUMAR,KARNAL vs. CIT (APPEALS), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 173/GTY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati15 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Ble & Shri Sanjay Awasthi, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Daljit Singh, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Kausik Ray JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 Page 1 of 5 ITA NO. 173 / GTY / 2025 Pankaj Kumar-Vs- The ITO, Ward-1 (2), Guwahati AY: 2014-15 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) and pertains to the Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is an individual and not filed

SUNITA CHOUDHURY,MAKUM ROAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TINSUKIA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 136/GTY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati06 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Largely On Account Of The Fact That Even At That Stage The Assessee Did Not Respond To The Notices Issued From His Office.

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 148ASection 151Section 250Section 68

Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter ‘the Act’). 1.1 In this case, it is seen that the Ld. AO received information regarding alleged bogus Long Term Capital Gains

AGRIM INFRAPROJECT PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI

In the result, this appeal of the assessee i

ITA 222/GTY/2019[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Guwahati05 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 153ASection 250Section 68

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. In ITA No. 219, & 222/GAU/2019, the assessee has raised the following grounds:- (1) That the ld. CIT(A) has fails to appreciate all the averments/objections taken by the appellant in its written submission dated 11.10.2018 and was in gross violation of natural justice while dismissing the case without considering the written submission

AGRIM INFRAPROJECT PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI

In the result, this appeal of the assessee i

ITA 224/GTY/2019[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Guwahati05 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 153ASection 250Section 68

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. In ITA No. 219, & 222/GAU/2019, the assessee has raised the following grounds:- (1) That the ld. CIT(A) has fails to appreciate all the averments/objections taken by the appellant in its written submission dated 11.10.2018 and was in gross violation of natural justice while dismissing the case without considering the written submission

AGRIM INFRAPROJECT PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI

In the result, this appeal of the assessee i

ITA 219/GTY/2019[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Guwahati05 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 153ASection 250Section 68

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. In ITA No. 219, & 222/GAU/2019, the assessee has raised the following grounds:- (1) That the ld. CIT(A) has fails to appreciate all the averments/objections taken by the appellant in its written submission dated 11.10.2018 and was in gross violation of natural justice while dismissing the case without considering the written submission

MANTO TINGKHAHAM,NAMSANGMUKH vs. OFFICE OF THE ITO, DIGBOI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 161/GTY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati28 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was disposed of by order dated 21/03/2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Vide DIN & Order No :ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1074803037(1).

Section 10(26)Section 250Section 69A

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”), dated 31.03.2025, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereafter “the Ld. CIT(A)]. 1.1. In this case, there is a delay of 18 days which has been requested to be condoned as under: “AFIDAVIT of SHRI MANTO TINGKHAHAM aged 51 years

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)

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”), vide order dated 19.03.2020. It may be mentioned that appeals 204 & 228/Gty/2024 pertain to A.Y. 2014-15, whereas, ITA No. 204/Gty/2018 pertains to the quantum and ITA No. 228/Gty/2024 pertains to penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. ITA No. 227/Gty/2024 pertains

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)

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”), vide order dated 19.03.2020. It may be mentioned that appeals 204 & 228/Gty/2024 pertain to A.Y. 2014-15, whereas, ITA No. 204/Gty/2018 pertains to the quantum and ITA No. 228/Gty/2024 pertains to penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. ITA No. 227/Gty/2024 pertains

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)

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”), vide order dated 19.03.2020. It may be mentioned that appeals 204 & 228/Gty/2024 pertain to A.Y. 2014-15, whereas, ITA No. 204/Gty/2018 pertains to the quantum and ITA No. 228/Gty/2024 pertains to penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. ITA No. 227/Gty/2024 pertains

GREENPLY INDUSTRIES LIMITED,TINSUKIA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-TINSUKIA, TINSUKIA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 232/GTY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati21 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Manish Borad

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 80ISection 92C

250/-on 29.11.2015. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS under complete scrutiny category followed by serving of notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. Various details as called for by the ld. Assessing Officer were filed by the assessee. During the course of assessment proceedings, ld. Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has entered

ACIT, CIRCLE - TINSUKIA , TINSUKIA vs. M/S. GREENPLY INDUSTRIES LTD., TINSUKIA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 359/GTY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati21 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Manish Borad

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 80ISection 92C

250/-on 29.11.2015. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS under complete scrutiny category followed by serving of notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. Various details as called for by the ld. Assessing Officer were filed by the assessee. During the course of assessment proceedings, ld. Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has entered

GREENLAM INDUSTRIES LIMITED,TINSUKIA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-TINSUKIA, TINSUKIA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per the terms indicated above

ITA 402/GTY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati19 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

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

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 25Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 31(3)(a)

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the I.T.A. No.: 402/Gau/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Greenlam Industries Limited. “Act”) by ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Dibrugarh [in short ld. “CIT(A)”] dated 21.06.2019 arising out of the assessment order framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Act dated 20.02.2019. 2. The assessee is in appeal before

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”) by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereafter “the Ld. CIT(A)] dated 22.07.2025, DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/ 1078777515(1) as per the grounds raised by the assessee after going through the grounds, the substantive grievance raised by the assessee is the deduction

SANDEEP JALAN,GUWAHATI vs. DCIT/ACIT CIR-1, GUWAHATI

Appeal is allowed

ITA 157/GTY/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati19 Nov 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: The Hon’Ble Tribunal Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A), Dated 08.12.2023, Under The Income Tax Act, 1961. 1. Period Of Delay: There Is A Delay Of 494 Days In Filing The Said Appeal

Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69Section 69C

250/-. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS and statutory notices u/s 143(2)/ 142(1) I.T.A. No. 157/GTY/2025 Sandeep Jalan were issued. During the assessment proceedings, it was noted by the AO that the assessee had earned long term capital gains (LTCG) of Rs. 24,10,000/- from sale of shares of M/s Sulabh