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.

3 results for “capital gains”+ Section 273Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Surat14Jaipur14Chennai13Delhi11Hyderabad10Bangalore10Visakhapatnam9Mumbai9Cochin6Ahmedabad4Rajkot4Indore3Kolkata2Pune1SC1Cuttack1Varanasi1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 271B12Section 271A8Section 44A6Section 92B3Penalty3

ACIT-2(1), UJJAIN, UJJAIN vs. M/S RUCHI J OIL PVT. LTD,, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal ITANo

ITA 82/IND/2020[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Indore17 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2014-15

Section 271ASection 40A(2)(b)Section 91D(1)Section 92BSection 92D(1)

capital gain :- a) CIT vs. Accelerated Freeze Drying Co. Ltd. [2011] 337 ITR 440 (Kerala) b) Premier Automobiles Ltd. vs. ITO [2003] 264 ITR 193 (Bom.) " It may please be appreciated that the slump sale transaction was therefore not a Specified Domestic Transaction as defined in section 92BA of the Act and it was not required to be reported

SHRI ASHOK KUMAR JATAV,BHOPAL vs. ITO-5(4), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 592/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Ashok Kumar Jatav Ito 5(4), Bhopal Bhopal Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Abwpj 3945 J Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Dr Date Of Hearing 18.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 23.08.2022 O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 271BSection 44A

capital gain or adventure / business, has always been a matter of dispute and litigation and there cannot be a short-cut or standard formula to decide exact nature, particularly by means of a short-finding in the penalty-order even while maintaining total silence in the assessment-order. In any case, considering the fact that there can be two views

SACHCHIDANAND TRIPATHI ,BHOPAL vs. ITO 5(2) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee in ITANo

ITA 339/IND/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2014-15 Sachchidanand Tripati Ito 5(2) Bhopal Bhopal बनाम/ (Appellant) (Respondent ) Vs. P.A. No.Aampt3788N Appellant By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Respondent By Shri Amit Soni, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.12.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad: The Above Captioned Appeal At The Instance Of Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, (In Short ‘Cit(A)’), Bhopal Dated 01.05.2019 Which Are Arising Out Of The Order U/S 271B Of The Income Tax Act 1961(In Short The ‘Act’) Dated 26.05.2017 Framed By Ito-5(2) Bhopal.

Section 133(6)Section 271BSection 44A

gain. Assessee is maintaining share trading account with Nirmal Bang Securities Pvt. Ltd. Total sales made on delivery based transaction amounting to Rs.3,13,81410/-. Assessee has not disputed this figure of sale turnover of share trading of delivery based transaction but only claimed before ld. AO that these transaction were in the nature of purchase and sale of shares