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.

28 results for “capital gains”+ Section 50clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,859Delhi1,335Chennai449Jaipur369Bangalore361Ahmedabad356Hyderabad316Kolkata261Chandigarh219Pune176Indore167Cochin134Surat108Raipur101Nagpur93Rajkot86Visakhapatnam63Lucknow56Amritsar41Patna32Dehradun31Guwahati28Cuttack28Jodhpur26Agra20Allahabad9Varanasi9Jabalpur6Ranchi6Panaji4

Key Topics

Addition to Income10Section 143(1)9Section 143(3)8Section 2507Disallowance6Section 1475Section 44A5Depreciation5Section 1484

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

capital gain claim has been quantified to Rs.64,48,50,444/-. Thus the Department was not having complete list even for confronting any of the assessees. He pointed out that though no specific disclosure was made even in the statement under section

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

capital gain claim has been quantified to Rs.64,48,50,444/-. Thus the Department was not having complete list even for confronting any of the assessees. He pointed out that though no specific disclosure was made even in the statement under section

Showing 1–20 of 28 · Page 1 of 2

Section 2633
Section 1443
Cash Deposit2

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

capital gain claim has been quantified to Rs.64,48,50,444/-. Thus the Department was not having complete list even for confronting any of the assessees. He pointed out that though no specific disclosure was made even in the statement under section

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

capital gain claim has been quantified to Rs.64,48,50,444/-. Thus the Department was not having complete list even for confronting any of the assessees. He pointed out that though no specific disclosure was made even in the statement under section

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

capital gain claim has been quantified to Rs.64,48,50,444/-. Thus the Department was not having complete list even for confronting any of the assessees. He pointed out that though no specific disclosure was made even in the statement under section

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

capital gain claim has been quantified to Rs.64,48,50,444/-. Thus the Department was not having complete list even for confronting any of the assessees. He pointed out that though no specific disclosure was made even in the statement under section

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

capital gain claim has been quantified to Rs.64,48,50,444/-. Thus the Department was not having complete list even for confronting any of the assessees. He pointed out that though no specific disclosure was made even in the statement under section

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

capital gain claim has been quantified to Rs.64,48,50,444/-. Thus the Department was not having complete list even for confronting any of the assessees. He pointed out that though no specific disclosure was made even in the statement under section

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

capital gain claim has been quantified to Rs.64,48,50,444/-. Thus the Department was not having complete list even for confronting any of the assessees. He pointed out that though no specific disclosure was made even in the statement under section

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

capital gain claim has been quantified to Rs.64,48,50,444/-. Thus the Department was not having complete list even for confronting any of the assessees. He pointed out that though no specific disclosure was made even in the statement under section

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

capital gain claim has been quantified to Rs.64,48,50,444/-. Thus the Department was not having complete list even for confronting any of the assessees. He pointed out that though no specific disclosure was made even in the statement under section

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

capital gain claim has been quantified to Rs.64,48,50,444/-. Thus the Department was not having complete list even for confronting any of the assessees. He pointed out that though no specific disclosure was made even in the statement under section

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

capital gain claim has been quantified to Rs.64,48,50,444/-. Thus the Department was not having complete list even for confronting any of the assessees. He pointed out that though no specific disclosure was made even in the statement under section

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

capital gain claim has been quantified to Rs.64,48,50,444/-. Thus the Department was not having complete list even for confronting any of the assessees. He pointed out that though no specific disclosure was made even in the statement under section

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

capital gain claim has been quantified to Rs.64,48,50,444/-. Thus the Department was not having complete list even for confronting any of the assessees. He pointed out that though no specific disclosure was made even in the statement under section

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

capital gain claim has been quantified to Rs.64,48,50,444/-. Thus the Department was not having complete list even for confronting any of the assessees. He pointed out that though no specific disclosure was made even in the statement under section

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

capital gain for Rs. 42,08,406/- contrary to the scope of section 143(1) of Income Tax Act. 3. That the Ld. CIT (A) also erred on facts and in law and failed to appreciate the facts of the case (a) That The Ld. CIT (A) has misread and misunderstood the provision of section

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

50,000 equity shares of Twenty First Century (India) Ltd. at a consideration of ₹ 1,54,08,134/- and claimed long term capital gain as exempt under Section

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

UDAI CHAND CHOPRA,GUWAHATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 55/GTY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.55/Gty/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Udai Chand Chopra……….......…..…………....................……….……Appellant C/O Kamal Kumar Golchha, Room No.10, Ram Kumar Plaza, 2Nd Floor, Chatribari Road, Guwahati-781001. [Pan: Abqpc9800P] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(2), Guwahati ……..…............…….......................…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. P. Bhati, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri N.T Sherpa, Jcit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 27, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 13, 2023 Order Per Manish Borad: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year (In Short “Ay”) 2014-15 Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Guwahati-1, Guwahati [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 31.12.2018 Which Is Arising Out Of The Order U/S 144 Of The Assessing Officer Dated 23.12.2016. 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 143(2)Section 144

50% of Rs.52,11,500/-) as income from undisclosed investment though the same was purchased out of the sale proceeds of the ancestral agricultural land which was fully disclosed in the ROI. 4. For that the learned Assessing Officer is not justified in making addition of Rs.53,00,000/- as undisclosed income which is in fact the sale proceeds