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.

141 results for “capital gains”+ Section 140clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai634Delhi612Bangalore274Chennai156Ahmedabad149Kolkata141Karnataka128Jaipur106Chandigarh104Hyderabad83Cochin77Calcutta52Indore50Raipur41Pune36Rajkot29Surat26Nagpur21Lucknow21Cuttack18Visakhapatnam15Telangana14SC9Amritsar9Ranchi8Agra6Jabalpur6Dehradun5Guwahati5Jodhpur4Allahabad3Rajasthan3Varanasi2Panaji2Orissa1Punjab & Haryana1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)96Addition to Income46Section 14A44Section 115J44Deduction41Disallowance38Section 80I30Section 25021Section 54F21Section 10B

RAGUVALIKA TRADING PVT LTD ( SINCE MERGED WITH M.M.MURARKA SHARE & SECURITIES PVT LTD),KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 4,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 848/KOL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Feb 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A Nos. 848 To 850/Kol/2013 Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2007-08 Ruguvalika Trading Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-4, Kolkata (Since Merged With M.M. Murarka Share & Securities Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 5743 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.P.Khaitan, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Srihari, CIT
Section 143(3)

140 wherein the assessee had maintained dual portfolios and ultimately the court held that the resultant gains from investment activity would be assessable as capital gains and not business income. We also find that the valuation of investments has been done by the assessee at cost as could be evident from the accounting policies forming part of the audited financial

RAGUVALIKA TRADING PVT LTD ( SINCE MERGED WITH M.M.MURARKA SHARE & SECURITIES PVT LTD),KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 4,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Showing 1–20 of 141 · Page 1 of 8

...
20
Section 4020
Depreciation17

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 850/KOL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A Nos. 848 To 850/Kol/2013 Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2007-08 Ruguvalika Trading Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-4, Kolkata (Since Merged With M.M. Murarka Share & Securities Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 5743 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.P.Khaitan, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Srihari, CIT
Section 143(3)

140 wherein the assessee had maintained dual portfolios and ultimately the court held that the resultant gains from investment activity would be assessable as capital gains and not business income. We also find that the valuation of investments has been done by the assessee at cost as could be evident from the accounting policies forming part of the audited financial

RAGUVALIKA TRADING PVT LTD ( SINCE MERGED WITH M.M.MURARKA SHARE & SECURITIES PVT LTD),KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 4,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 849/KOL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Feb 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A Nos. 848 To 850/Kol/2013 Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2007-08 Ruguvalika Trading Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-4, Kolkata (Since Merged With M.M. Murarka Share & Securities Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 5743 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.P.Khaitan, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Srihari, CIT
Section 143(3)

140 wherein the assessee had maintained dual portfolios and ultimately the court held that the resultant gains from investment activity would be assessable as capital gains and not business income. We also find that the valuation of investments has been done by the assessee at cost as could be evident from the accounting policies forming part of the audited financial

RAGUVALIKA TRADING PVT LTD ( SINCE MERGED WITH M.M.MURARKA SHARE & SECURITIES PVT LTD),KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 4,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 851/KOL/2013[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Feb 2018AY 2008-2009

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A Nos. 848 To 850/Kol/2013 Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2007-08 Ruguvalika Trading Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-4, Kolkata (Since Merged With M.M. Murarka Share & Securities Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 5743 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.P.Khaitan, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Srihari, CIT
Section 143(3)

140 wherein the assessee had maintained dual portfolios and ultimately the court held that the resultant gains from investment activity would be assessable as capital gains and not business income. We also find that the valuation of investments has been done by the assessee at cost as could be evident from the accounting policies forming part of the audited financial

THE PEERLESS GEN. FIN. & INV. CO. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 892/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri A.T. Varkey

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263Section 50

Gain in terms of section 50 of the Act and, therefore, the Long Term Capital Loss could not be set off against the same. The Assessing Officer also made further disallowances under sections 14A and 40(a)(ia) of the Act determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.1,35,48,59,800/- in the assessment completed under section

INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-31(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. DILIP B BESAI (HUF), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2799/KOL/2013[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Jan 2017AY 2006-2007

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri Nicholas Murmu, JCIT, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Shah, FCA
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 263

140 wherein the assessee had maintained dual portfolios and ultimately the court held that the resultant gains from investment activity would be Dilip B.Desaii (HUF). A.Yr.2009-10 & 2006-07 assessable as capital gains and not business income. We also find that the valuation of investments has been done by the assessee at cost as could be evident from

SMT. ROMI LAHIRI,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-51, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 173/KOL/2014[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Aug 2016AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri Goutam Banerjee, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT
Section 144Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 54F

140/- and sold it away on 7.12.2005 for Rs.9,93,700/-, but claimed both long term capital gains as well as benefit under section

ICI INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 850/KOL/2007[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Nov 2015AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 143(3)

capital gain cannot be computed. While taking this view, he derive support from the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.C.Srinivasa Setty 128 ITR 294 relied upon by the him. The ITAT Hyderabad Bench in the case of Coromandel Fertilisers Ltd. 90 ITD 439 (Hyd) (supra) held that it is not possible to determine the cost

ACIT, CIR-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ICI INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2355/KOL/2005[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Nov 2015AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 143(3)

capital gain cannot be computed. While taking this view, he derive support from the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.C.Srinivasa Setty 128 ITR 294 relied upon by the him. The ITAT Hyderabad Bench in the case of Coromandel Fertilisers Ltd. 90 ITD 439 (Hyd) (supra) held that it is not possible to determine the cost

DCIT, CIR-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ICI INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1021/KOL/2007[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Nov 2015AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 143(3)

capital gain cannot be computed. While taking this view, he derive support from the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.C.Srinivasa Setty 128 ITR 294 relied upon by the him. The ITAT Hyderabad Bench in the case of Coromandel Fertilisers Ltd. 90 ITD 439 (Hyd) (supra) held that it is not possible to determine the cost

ITO, WD-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S DIVYAM TIE-UP PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 164/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Apr 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.164/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) I.T.O Wd-3(1), Kolkata Vs. M/S. Divyam Tie-Up Pvt. Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

140/- as ‘income from business’ instead of as income under the head ‘short-term capital gain’. 4. Aggrieved by the stand of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld CIT(A), with success, who has directed the assessing officer to treat the income of the assessee under the head ‘short- term capital gain’. Aggrieved

ITO, WARD-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. DATEX OHMEDA (INDIA) PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2038/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jun 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Smt. Madhumita Roy

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 47

Gains ujs.47(vib) of the Income Tax Act as the demerger did not fulfil the conditions u/s.2(19AA). In this case, the A.O. has held that provisions of section 47(vib) on transfer resulting out of demerger, (where the demerger is defined in section 2(19AA) of the Income Tax Act) holding that all the liabilities being held

ITO, WD-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S WHITE CLIFF PROPERTIES (P) LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1511/KOL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 143(3)Section 251

Section 48 as a result of the transfer of the capital asset. 25. This Court in E.D. Sassoon & Co. Ltd. v. CIT, (1955) 1 SCR 313 at 343 held: "lt is clear therefore that income may accrue to an assessee without the actual receipt of the same. If the assessee acquires a right to receive the income, the income

SARITA BHOTIKA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 7(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 115/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P.M.Jagtap, Vice- & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year:2011-12

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

140 pages comprising of written submissions before the ITO, the CIT(A), purchased deed dated 17.02.1994, sale deed dated 10.05.2010, copies of inspection letter, mutation certificate and case law; stand perused. ITA No.115/Kol/2018 A.Y.2011-12 Sarita Bhotika Vs. ITO Wd-7(2), Kol. Page 2 2. It emerges during the course of hearing that the assessee’s pleadings her concise grounds

SHRUTI MUNDHRA ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 36(2) , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of all the captioned assessees are dismissed

ITA 2606/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

section 142(1) along with questionnaire was issued and duly served upon the assessee. During the course of assessment procedings, ld. Assessing Officer based on the information received from the Directorate of Income Tax (Investigation), Kolkata observed that the long-term capital gain claimed exempt at Rs.46,30,805/- is suspicious and seems to be an accommodation entries since both

SUSHILA DEVI MUNDHRA ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 36(2) , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of all the captioned assessees are dismissed

ITA 2593/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

section 142(1) along with questionnaire was issued and duly served upon the assessee. During the course of assessment procedings, ld. Assessing Officer based on the information received from the Directorate of Income Tax (Investigation), Kolkata observed that the long-term capital gain claimed exempt at Rs.46,30,805/- is suspicious and seems to be an accommodation entries since both

RAJENDRA KUMAR GUPTA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-36(1), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of all the captioned assessees are dismissed

ITA 2175/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

section 142(1) along with questionnaire was issued and duly served upon the assessee. During the course of assessment procedings, ld. Assessing Officer based on the information received from the Directorate of Income Tax (Investigation), Kolkata observed that the long-term capital gain claimed exempt at Rs.46,30,805/- is suspicious and seems to be an accommodation entries since both

MAMTA DEVI AGARWALA,SILIGURI vs. I.T.O.,WARD-2(1), SILIGURI

In the result, all the appeals of all the captioned assessees are dismissed

ITA 2468/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

section 142(1) along with questionnaire was issued and duly served upon the assessee. During the course of assessment procedings, ld. Assessing Officer based on the information received from the Directorate of Income Tax (Investigation), Kolkata observed that the long-term capital gain claimed exempt at Rs.46,30,805/- is suspicious and seems to be an accommodation entries since both

ARUN ROY ,SILIGURI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, SILIGURI

In the result, all the appeals of all the captioned assessees are dismissed

ITA 2456/KOL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

section 142(1) along with questionnaire was issued and duly served upon the assessee. During the course of assessment procedings, ld. Assessing Officer based on the information received from the Directorate of Income Tax (Investigation), Kolkata observed that the long-term capital gain claimed exempt at Rs.46,30,805/- is suspicious and seems to be an accommodation entries since both

SUMIT BAJAJ ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 36(2) , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of all the captioned assessees are dismissed

ITA 2553/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

section 142(1) along with questionnaire was issued and duly served upon the assessee. During the course of assessment procedings, ld. Assessing Officer based on the information received from the Directorate of Income Tax (Investigation), Kolkata observed that the long-term capital gain claimed exempt at Rs.46,30,805/- is suspicious and seems to be an accommodation entries since both