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.

428 results for “capital gains”+ Section 147clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,361Delhi1,574Chennai831Bangalore670Ahmedabad658Jaipur571Hyderabad471Kolkata428Pune335Indore261Chandigarh243Surat232Cochin189Karnataka154Visakhapatnam138Rajkot132Raipur130Nagpur119Agra68Lucknow67Amritsar66Calcutta60Panaji58Guwahati57Patna49Jabalpur35Cuttack27Jodhpur27Ranchi24Dehradun22SC20Allahabad15Telangana10Varanasi8Kerala4Rajasthan3Orissa2Andhra Pradesh2Punjab & Haryana1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 147165Section 148134Addition to Income75Section 143(3)64Section 25048Section 6846Reopening of Assessment45Section 148A37Long Term Capital Gains27

DCIT CIR - 6,KOLKATA., KOLKATA vs. M/S K.B. CAPITAL MARKETS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed, while the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1882/KOL/2012[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 May 2016AY 2008-2009

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 1882/Kol/2012 Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri D.S.Damle, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Subhra. Biswas, CIT(DR) &
Section 10Section 111ASection 14ASection 94(7)

Section 73 is not attracted in its case. “ 5. Based on the above analysis of the transactions giving raise to long term capital gain and short term capital gain, the AO was of the view that short term capital gain of Rs. 4 M/s.K.B.Capital Markets Ltd. A.Yr.2008-09 2,64,04,050/- and Long Term Capital Gain

Showing 1–20 of 428 · Page 1 of 22

...
Section 14A24
Reassessment23
Section 143(1)22

KB CAPITAL MARKETS (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I,.T CIR - 6 , KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed, while the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1726/KOL/2012[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 May 2016AY 2008-2009

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 1882/Kol/2012 Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri D.S.Damle, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Subhra. Biswas, CIT(DR) &
Section 10Section 111ASection 14ASection 94(7)

Section 73 is not attracted in its case. “ 5. Based on the above analysis of the transactions giving raise to long term capital gain and short term capital gain, the AO was of the view that short term capital gain of Rs. 4 M/s.K.B.Capital Markets Ltd. A.Yr.2008-09 2,64,04,050/- and Long Term Capital Gain

ACIT, CIRCLE - 25, KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. MALA ROY & OTHERS, KOLKATA

In the result, this appeal of the In the result, this appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 407/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

Section 147 were invalid. Instead of adding anything to the said reasons, we think it wo were invalid. Instead of adding anything to the said reasons, we think it would be appropriate if uld be appropriate if the same are reproduced:-- -- "In the case at hand, as is seen from the reasons recorded by the AO, we find that

ACIT, CIRCLE - 25, KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. MALA ROY & OTHERS, KOLKATA

In the result, this appeal of the In the result, this appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 406/KOL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

Section 147 were invalid. Instead of adding anything to the said reasons, we think it wo were invalid. Instead of adding anything to the said reasons, we think it would be appropriate if uld be appropriate if the same are reproduced:-- -- "In the case at hand, as is seen from the reasons recorded by the AO, we find that

ANANDA PAUL,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-50, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands are allowed

ITA 165/KOL/2015[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Apr 2018AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2007-08 Ananda Paul V/S. Acit, Circle-50, Cf-125, Salt Lake City, Manicktala Civic Centre, Kolkata-64 Uttarpan Complex, Ds- [Pan No.Afkpp 2201 D] 2&3, Kolkata-54 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri S. Dasagupta, Addl. Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 12-02-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 20-04-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xxxii, Kolkata Dated 05.11.2014. Assessment Was Framed By Acit, Circle-50 Kolkata U/S 147/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 30.12.2011 For Assessment Year 2007-08. Shri, S.K. Tulsiyan, Ld. Advocate Appeared On Behalf Of Assessee & Shri S. Dasgupta, Ld. Departmental Representative Appeared On Behalf Of Revenue. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1) That On The Fats & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Not Treating The Re-Assessment Proceeding U/S 143(3)/147 Of The It Act, 1961 As Invalid, Bad In Law, Unjust & Contrary To The Facts & Law. 2) That On The Facts & In Respect To The Circumstances Of Thee Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Assessment Order Passed U/S. 143(3)/147 Of The It Act, 1961 By The Ld. Ao As Proper & Valid Without Considering The

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 19(38)

capital gain income on account of sale of shares under section 10(38) of the Act though the assessee has not paid STT on the sale of such shares. The assessee in compliance thereto submitted that there is no such mistake in the order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act. However the AO subsequently dropped the proceedings initiated

VIKASH SOLVEXTRACTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, ground Nos

ITA 1927/KOL/2014[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Dec 2017AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr.A.L. Saini, Am]

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 45(2)

gain of Rs.4,31,47,708/- and the business income of Rs. 62,05,051/-. The assessee objected against the Assessing Officer’s action of application of section 45(2) by stating the following reasons: i. The assessee’s land had been a “Capital Asset” in its hands and it was disclosed in the assessee’s Balance Sheet

VIKASH SOLVEXTRACTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, ground Nos

ITA 1928/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Dec 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr.A.L. Saini, Am]

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 45(2)

gain of Rs.4,31,47,708/- and the business income of Rs. 62,05,051/-. The assessee objected against the Assessing Officer’s action of application of section 45(2) by stating the following reasons: i. The assessee’s land had been a “Capital Asset” in its hands and it was disclosed in the assessee’s Balance Sheet

VIKASH SOLVEXTRACTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, ground Nos

ITA 1929/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Dec 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr.A.L. Saini, Am]

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 45(2)

gain of Rs.4,31,47,708/- and the business income of Rs. 62,05,051/-. The assessee objected against the Assessing Officer’s action of application of section 45(2) by stating the following reasons: i. The assessee’s land had been a “Capital Asset” in its hands and it was disclosed in the assessee’s Balance Sheet

VIKASH SOLVEXTRACTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, ground Nos

ITA 1925/KOL/2014[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Dec 2017AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr.A.L. Saini, Am]

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 45(2)

gain of Rs.4,31,47,708/- and the business income of Rs. 62,05,051/-. The assessee objected against the Assessing Officer’s action of application of section 45(2) by stating the following reasons: i. The assessee’s land had been a “Capital Asset” in its hands and it was disclosed in the assessee’s Balance Sheet

VIKASH SOLVEXTRACTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, ground Nos

ITA 1926/KOL/2014[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Dec 2017AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr.A.L. Saini, Am]

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 45(2)

gain of Rs.4,31,47,708/- and the business income of Rs. 62,05,051/-. The assessee objected against the Assessing Officer’s action of application of section 45(2) by stating the following reasons: i. The assessee’s land had been a “Capital Asset” in its hands and it was disclosed in the assessee’s Balance Sheet

EIH LTD.,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIR-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 110/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 153/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Eih Limited [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 110/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Eih Limited -Vs- Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Kanchun Kaushal,Ar For The Department : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.01.2018 Order Per Bench:

For Appellant: Shri Kanchun Kaushal,ARFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 14A(2)

gain of Rs 7,18,74,000/- in the facts of the case. The ld AO is accordingly directed to give benefit of the same to the assessee based on the correctness of the claim of brought forward loss figure made by the assessee. Accordingly, the Ground Nos. 5.1 & 5.2 raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

DCIT, CIR-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S EIH LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 153/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 153/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Eih Limited [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 110/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Eih Limited -Vs- Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Kanchun Kaushal,Ar For The Department : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.01.2018 Order Per Bench:

For Appellant: Shri Kanchun Kaushal,ARFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 14A(2)

gain of Rs 7,18,74,000/- in the facts of the case. The ld AO is accordingly directed to give benefit of the same to the assessee based on the correctness of the claim of brought forward loss figure made by the assessee. Accordingly, the Ground Nos. 5.1 & 5.2 raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

I.T.O WD - 1(4),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ORCHID GRIHA NIRMAN, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2269/KOL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No. 2269/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2008-09 I.T.O., Ward-1(4) -Vs.- M/S. Orchid Griha Nirman Pvt. Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaaco 7148 L] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri Angam Shaiza, Cit For The Respondent : (I) Shri J.P.Khaitan, Sr.Advocate (Ii)Shri S.Jhajharia, Fca (Iii) Shri Sujoy Sen, Advocate

For Appellant: Shri Angam Shaiza, CITFor Respondent: (i) Shri J.P.Khaitan, Sr.Advocate
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

Capital Gains accrued Rs.96,37,85,635 (As discussed in above paras) ii) Share of “Revaluation Profit” Rs.37,03,36,187 (As discussed in above paras) Assesseed Total Income Rs.133,40,62,937” 12. Before CIT(A) the assessee submitted that initiation of re-assessment proceedings u/s 148 of the Act are not valid. It was contended that the reasons

CHAINROOP BOHRA.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT CC - XXVII/CAL., KOLKATA

In the result, all these four appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 24/KOL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Oct 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 148

capital gain were added by him to the total income of the assessees treating the same as unexplained cash credits under section 68 in the assessments completed under section 143(3) read with section 147

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4(3), KOLKATA vs. M/S. GRD COMMODITIES LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the cross objections of assessee are allowed

ITA 2277/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Dec 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) &Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] It(Ss)A Nos.120 To123/Kol/2018 Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2012-13

Section 132Section 133ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

capital along with supporting evidences. 3. Details of investment in shares of Rs.1,40,00,000/- along with source of investment in shares and supporting evidences. 4. Details of Sundry Debtors of Rs.6,74,635/- along with supporting evidences. 5. Details of cash in hand of Rs.1,29,338/- with supporting evidences. 6. Details of Bank Balance of Rs.32

D.C.I.T CIR - 6,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S KILBURN ENGINEERING LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1987/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ] Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri R.S.Biswas, CITFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Singhi, AR
Section 45Section 54GSection 54G(2)

capital gains tax, we have to take similar approach in deciding the issue in hand i.e. the claim of assessee for exemption u/s. 54EC of the Act because this is exactly similar to section 54E, 54B or 54EA or EB of the Act. In the present case before us, admittedly assessee received part payments after execution of agreement to sale

DIPTI MEHTA ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 43(2), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2032/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

section 147, if the AO does not assess or reassess the income which he has reason to believe had escaped assessment and which formed the basis of the notice u/s 148, is it open to the AO to assess or reassess independently any other income which does not form the subject-matter of the notice. 3. The brief facts

SRI BIJAY SHANKAR HALWASIYA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 44(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 910/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Dec 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 2353/Kol/2016 & I.T.A. No. 910/Kol/2018 Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2009-10 Shri Bijay Shankar Halwasiya -Vs- Ito, Ward-44(4) , Kolkata [Pan: Aaqph 4752 A] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S.M. Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

section 147 / 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) dated 25.03.2015 and 30.03.2015 respectively for the Assessment Years 2007-08 and 2009-10 respectively. both the appeals are taken together and disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience. A.Yrs. 2007-08 & 2009-10 ITA No. 2353/Kol/2016 – Asst Year

SRI BIJAY SHANKAR HALWASIYA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 44(4)/ KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 2353/KOL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Dec 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 2353/Kol/2016 & I.T.A. No. 910/Kol/2018 Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2009-10 Shri Bijay Shankar Halwasiya -Vs- Ito, Ward-44(4) , Kolkata [Pan: Aaqph 4752 A] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S.M. Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

section 147 / 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) dated 25.03.2015 and 30.03.2015 respectively for the Assessment Years 2007-08 and 2009-10 respectively. both the appeals are taken together and disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience. A.Yrs. 2007-08 & 2009-10 ITA No. 2353/Kol/2016 – Asst Year

SURESH KUMAR PODDAR,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 63(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1542/KOL/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Mar 2026AY 2011-2012

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

Section 111ASection 132Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250Section 250o

capital gain and Rs. 73,60,000/- was added in respect of investment in shares of M/s Shri Ganesh Spinners Limited, controlled and manage Shri Shah. The assessment was framed by the AO was affirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). 6. The ld AR vehemently submitted that the assessment framed by the AO u/s 144/147 of the Act vide order