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.

24 results for “capital gains”+ Section 158clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi691Mumbai645Chennai150Ahmedabad137Karnataka124Bangalore120Kolkata99Jaipur98Chandigarh76Cochin73Raipur47Hyderabad44Indore24Pune24Lucknow20Calcutta18Cuttack18Surat15Panaji14Nagpur10SC9Jodhpur6Amritsar5Telangana5Visakhapatnam4Rajasthan4Agra4Allahabad1Rajkot1Jabalpur1Andhra Pradesh1Punjab & Haryana1Patna1

Key Topics

Section 26339Section 143(3)38Section 10(38)19Addition to Income16Exemption12Section 271(1)(c)11Section 6810Long Term Capital Gains8Section 1486

SADHU RAM BALANI,INDORE vs. ITO-5(1), INDORE, INDORE

ITA 470/IND/2023[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Indore24 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisadhu Ram Balani Ito-5(1) Flat No.B-503, Moti Mahal Indore Apartment 28-A, Sector-C Vs. Scheme No.71, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Abspb5367L Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing 04.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24.09.2024

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 133A

capital gain from purchase and sale of shares which is exempt under section 10(38) of the Act, the primary onus is on the assessee to substantiate his claim by producing the supporting evidence. We find that in the case in hand this is not an isolated transaction of purchase and sale of shares by the assessee of M/s. Sunrise

ACIT CENTRAL-2 INDORE, INDORE vs. SHRI .GAURAV TEKRIWAL, INDORE

In the result, this appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Showing 1–20 of 24 · Page 1 of 2

Section 143(2)6
House Property6
Penny Stock6
ITA 62/IND/2021[2015-16]Status: Disposed
ITAT Indore
21 Nov 2022
AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Acit, Central -2 Shri Gaurav Tekriwal Indore बनाम/ 204, Princess Valley, South Tukoganj, Indore Vs. (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Acppt 1628 Q Assessee By Shri Anil Kamal Garg, Arpit Gaur, Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 21.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21.11.2022

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 54FSection 55(2)(a)Section 57

section 56 of the Act.” 7. During appellate proceeding, Ld. CIT(A) reversed the action of Ld. AO. Ld. CIT(A) accepted assessee’s claim of long-term capital gain by observing as under: “4.3 I have duly considered tire facts of the case, the AO's order and the appellant’s written submission find that in support

DCIT-1(1), BHOPAL vs. SHRI PRAKASH BHOJWANI, BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 172/IND/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore02 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2010-11 Dy. Cit, Shri Prakash Bhojwani, 1(1), H.No. 7, Parika Phase-I, Bhopal Walmi Road, बनाम/ Chuna Bhatti, Vs. Bhopal (Revenue / Respondent) (Assessee / Appellant) Pan: Abvpb 8825 E Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Harshit Bari, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02.01.2024

Section 111ASection 111USection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 28

section 43(5). The remaining transactions have resulted in short term capital gain. Therefore, the AO’s action in treating the entire short term capital of Rs. 57,28,867/- as business income was incorrect, unjustified and arbitrary. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the amount of Rs. 7,52,383/- only pertaining to the intraday sale

SHRI SURESH KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. THE ITO-4(1), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

ITA 29/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68

158 14. The Ld. DR raised objection of the cash purchase of shares Radheyshyam Khandelwal & Ors ITA No.7,8,29,30,& 113/Ind/2019 and that the shares were dematted subsequent to such purchase. He further relied upon the order passed by Delhi High Court in the matter of Udit Kalra Vs ITO passed on 8.3.2019 in ITA No.220/19. In effect

RADHESHYAM KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. ACIT4(1), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

ITA 7/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68

158 14. The Ld. DR raised objection of the cash purchase of shares Radheyshyam Khandelwal & Ors ITA No.7,8,29,30,& 113/Ind/2019 and that the shares were dematted subsequent to such purchase. He further relied upon the order passed by Delhi High Court in the matter of Udit Kalra Vs ITO passed on 8.3.2019 in ITA No.220/19. In effect

SMT. RUKMANI KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. ITO-4(3), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

ITA 30/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68

158 14. The Ld. DR raised objection of the cash purchase of shares Radheyshyam Khandelwal & Ors ITA No.7,8,29,30,& 113/Ind/2019 and that the shares were dematted subsequent to such purchase. He further relied upon the order passed by Delhi High Court in the matter of Udit Kalra Vs ITO passed on 8.3.2019 in ITA No.220/19. In effect

MOHANLAL KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. THE ITO-4(1), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

ITA 8/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68

158 14. The Ld. DR raised objection of the cash purchase of shares Radheyshyam Khandelwal & Ors ITA No.7,8,29,30,& 113/Ind/2019 and that the shares were dematted subsequent to such purchase. He further relied upon the order passed by Delhi High Court in the matter of Udit Kalra Vs ITO passed on 8.3.2019 in ITA No.220/19. In effect

SMT. SANDHYA KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. ITO 4(3), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

ITA 113/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68

158 14. The Ld. DR raised objection of the cash purchase of shares Radheyshyam Khandelwal & Ors ITA No.7,8,29,30,& 113/Ind/2019 and that the shares were dematted subsequent to such purchase. He further relied upon the order passed by Delhi High Court in the matter of Udit Kalra Vs ITO passed on 8.3.2019 in ITA No.220/19. In effect

GUNVEER SINGH CHHABRA ,INDORE vs. THE PR CIT -1, INDORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 117/IND/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy, Judicial Memebr & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Shubhash Jain, A.R
Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 263

capital gains. In the face of this material on record, it is difficult to explain that the assessment order was made without making any enquiry into the goodwill account of Rs. 10,75,000. . . ." (p. 158) 13. We have further considered the judgment passed in the matter of CIT vs. Kamal Galani (supra) when we find that the observation made

SMT ANUPAMA ASSWA,INDORE vs. THE PCIT-1, INDORE, INDORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 59/IND/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy, Judicial Memebr & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyaniआयकर अपील सं. / I.T.A. No. 59/Ind/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Smt. Anupama Asawa, Pcit-I, बनाम/ Indore Indore Vs.

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Agrawal & ShriFor Respondent: 20.09.2022 & 19.12.2022
Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54BSection 54F

capital gains. In the face of this material on record, it is difficult to explain that the assessment order was made without making any enquiry into the goodwill account of Rs. 10,75,000. . . ." (p. 158) [Except the fact to be pleaded separately in this particular paragraph] 12. So far as the jurisdiction of the Ld.PCIT under Section

M/S ROCKBED RENOVATORS LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE PCIT-1, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 214/IND/2023[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Indore12 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanirockbed Renovators Ltd. Pr. Cit-1 7-A, Panjabi Bagh Raisen Road Bhopal Govindpura Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaacr7151G Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari Ar Revenue By Ms. Ila Parmar, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing 10.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12.06.2024

Section 143(3)Section 196CSection 263

Section 54F cannot be denied on the ground that land on which construction done was agriculture in nature. Reliance is placed on the judgements in case of Vishnu Trading Co. 259 ITR 724 (Raj.), Narendra Mohan Uniyal 34 SOT 152 (Del.), Shyam Sunder Mukhija Vs. ITO 38 ITD 125 (JPR) and ACIT Vs. Om Prakash Goyal (2012) 53 SOT 158

SEWA SAHKARI SAMMITTEE MARYADIT,BEED, MUNDI KHANDWA vs. PCIT-1, INDORE

In the result, appeal by the assesse is allowed

ITA 44/IND/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisewa Sahkari Sammittee Pr. Cit-2 Maryadit Beed Indore Vs. Beed Mundi Khandwa (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aaufs0703N Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 05.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30.10.2023

Section 12ASection 138Section 143(3)Section 263

Section 54F cannot be denied on the ground that land on which construction done was agriculture in nature. Reliance is placed on the judgements in case of Vishnu Trading Co. 259 ITR 724 (Raj.), Narendra Mohan Uniyal 34 SOT 152 (Del.), Shyam Sunder Mukhija Vs. ITO 38 ITD 125 (JPR) and ACIT Vs. Om Prakash Goyal (2012) 53 SOT 158

MAA NARMADA AGROTECH AND INFRASTURES LTD,INDORE vs. THE PCIT-1 , INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 117/IND/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanimaa Narmada Agrotech & Pcit Infrastructures Limited Indore -1 Ug-47, Trade Centre, Vs. Kanchan Bagh Main Road, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aafcm6285 P Assessee By Shri S.N. Goyal & Shri Pranay Goyal, Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 31.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.07.2023

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

Section 54F cannot be denied on the ground that land on which construction done was agriculture in nature. Reliance is placed on the judgements in case of Vishnu Trading Co. 259 ITR 724 (Raj.), Narendra Mohan Uniyal 34 SOT 152 (Del.), Shyam Sunder Mukhija Vs. ITO 38 ITD 125 (JPR) and ACIT Vs. Om Prakash Goyal (2012) 53 SOT 158

BADAM SINGH,BHOPAL vs. ITO 4(1) , BHOPAL

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

ITA 127/IND/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jul 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshibadam Singh, Income Tax Officer- बनाम/ 392 Gram Palasi, 4(1), Vs. New Jail Road, Bhopal Karond, Bhopal (Pan: Drhps5664B) (Appellant) (Revenue) Assessee By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Dr Date Of Hearing 31.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31.07.2025 आदेश / O R D E R

Section 143Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 282

capital gain was exempt under section 54F 8. since the appellant had constructed residential house out of the F sale proceeds which is not considered by the CIT Appeals whilst passing the appellant order. Ground 9 That the appellant craves leave to add to amend alter modify substitute withdrawal delete or rescind all or any of the above grounds

THE ACIT CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL vs. SMT MEENAKSHI SARAIYA, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the revenue and CO are dismissed

ITA 231/IND/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit (Central)- Smt. Meenakshi Saraiya Bhopal E-13/111, Arera Colony Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent/ Assessee) Pan: Anrps3407K Revenue By Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Assessee By Shri Ila Parmar, Cit- Dr

Section 132Section 132(4)

section 56(2)(vii) of the Act. Therefore, the statement given by the appellant that she received the said plot from the second party, is not in accordance with the documentary evidences placed on record. Hence, statement of appellant, as relied and made one of the Page 11 of 24 ITANo.231/Ind/2023 & CO No.02/Ind/2024 Meenakshi Saraiya basis of addition

SRK DEV BUILD PVT LTD.,INDORE vs. DCIT/ACIT 5(1), INDORE

Appeal is allowed

ITA 471/IND/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2016-17 Srk Dev Build Pvt. Ltd, Dcit/Acit-5(1) 18/2, Lasudia Mori, Indore बनाम/ A.B. Road, Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaqcs3387P Assessee By Shri Pranay Goyal & S.N. Goyal, Cas Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.06.2024

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 32Section 32(1)Section 37Section 37(1)Section 40

section 271(1)(c), the pre-requisite condition for initiation of penalty is that there should concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. However, both the conditions are absent in this case, since whatever income was declared was accepted and assessee declared full details of short term capital gains in shares with each script, period of holding

MOJILAL RAJPUT,SHUJALPUR MANDI vs. ITO, SHAJAPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 21/IND/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Dec 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Mehta & Shri ApurvaFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mitra, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 44ASection 80C

capital gains. In the face of this material on record, it is difficult to explain that the ITA Nos.20&21/Ind/2022 Mojilal Rajput vs. ITO&PCIT Asst. Year–2009-10 - 13 – assessment order was made without making any enquiry into the goodwill account of Rs. 10,75,000. . . ." (p. 158) 11. So far as the jurisdiction of the Ld. PCIT under

MOJILAL RAJPUT,SUJALPUR MANDI vs. THE ITO, SHAJAPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 20/IND/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Dec 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Mehta & Shri ApurvaFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mitra, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 44ASection 80C

capital gains. In the face of this material on record, it is difficult to explain that the ITA Nos.20&21/Ind/2022 Mojilal Rajput vs. ITO&PCIT Asst. Year–2009-10 - 13 – assessment order was made without making any enquiry into the goodwill account of Rs. 10,75,000. . . ." (p. 158) 11. So far as the jurisdiction of the Ld. PCIT under

M/S. YATHARTH INFRASTRUCTURES (P) LTD.,UJJAIN vs. PR. CIT, UJJAIN

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 532/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy, Judicial Memebr & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Parth Jhavar, ARs
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

capital gains. In the face of this material on record, it is difficult to explain that the assessment order was made without making any enquiry into the goodwill account of Rs. 10,75,000. . . ." (p. 158) [Except the fact to be pleaded separately in this particular paragraph] 6.5 So far as the jurisdiction of the Ld.PCIT under Section

SHRI PRASHANT AGRAWAL,BHOPAL vs. PR. CIT -I , BHOPAL

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 561/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri N. DFor Respondent: Shri P. K. Mitra, CIT.D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

capital gains. In the face of this material on record, it is difficult to explain that the assessment order was made without making any enquiry into the goodwill account of Rs. 10,75,000. . . ." (p. 158) [Except the fact to be pleaded separately in this particular paragraph] ITA No. 561/Ind/2019 (Shri Prashant Agrawal vs.Pr.CIT) Asst.Year