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.

6 results for “capital gains”+ Section 246Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai34Indore32Pune17Panaji13Chandigarh12Mumbai12Delhi11Jaipur10Kolkata6Hyderabad6Ahmedabad5Bangalore4Jodhpur3Agra2Raipur2Visakhapatnam1Rajkot1Patna1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)9Section 1487Section 148A5Addition to Income5Section 2504Section 1474Section 144B3Section 2633Section 115V3Reassessment

BIJNI DOOARS TEA COMPANY LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. PCIT, KOL-2, KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 409/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19 Bijni Dooars Tea Company Principal Commissioner Of Ltd. Income-Tax, Kolkata-2, 4Th Floor, Room No. 1, Kolkata. Vs. Shantiniketan, 8, Camac Street, Kolkata-700017. (Pan: Aabcb1013E) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. Mita Rizvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. Datta, CIT, DR
Section 115PSection 143(3)Section 263Section 44A

Capital Gains as per the normal provisions of the Act.. .. there was no malafide intention of the assessee company to make such a mistake." (page 22 of the Paper Book) First of all, the AR of the assessee admits that mistakes have been made. Secondly, he also admits that particulars of DOT are part and parcel of both

2
Capital Gains2
Deduction2

ARCHANA BAID,SILCHAR, ASSAM vs. I.T.O., WARD - 34(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1135/KOL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Sept 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Manish Pugalia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Pradip Biswas, Addl. CIT
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 50C

capital gain of Rs. 6,34,000/- only. The difference of Rs. 26,75,340/- was added to the income shown in the return and the total income was assessed at Rs.33,52,340/-. The assessee could not succeed before the Ld. CIT(A) since due compliance was not made. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that the Assessing Officer

AVR STORAGE TANK TERMINALS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1350/KOL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Dec 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Dipran Mukherjee, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 244ASection 250Section 32

capital gains chargeable to income-tax as per the revised computation furnished by the appellant during the course of assessment proceedings. 4. a) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the NFAC erred in not directing the Assessing Officer to allow depreciation as per the revised computation of depreciation furnished by the appellant during the course

APEEJAY SHIPPING LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T CC - III,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2485/KOL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G. Hukugha Sema, CIT,DR
Section 115VSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 251Section 251(2)Section 80G

capital gain against which assessee has suo moto offered ₹3.70 lakhs as disallowance under section 14A. However, Ld. CIT(A) asked the assessee to explain why rule 8D should not be applied. Ld. CIT(A) also called for explanation in respect of deduction claimed under section 80G of ₹ 25.40 lakhs in view of section 115VL(ii). 3.4. In respect

SUSANTA MALLICK,KALIKAPUR vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-11(1),, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1764/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Oct 2025AY 2015-2016
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 250

capital gains) amounting to Rs. 68.64 lakhs, which upon enquiry by AO was found as bogus and fictitious and notice u/s 148 dated 29/07/2022 was issued (as per procedure ) , and reassessment proceedings were completed after considering all submissions of the assessee , by disallowing the claim of LTCG treating the same to be accommodation entries against commission paid to the entry

ACIT, CIRCLLE-34, KOLKATA vs. SUBHAS KUMAR KEDIA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1677/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1677/Kol/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) Acit, Circle-34, Kolkata Vs Subhas Kumar Kedia, 41, N.S.Road, Kolkata Pan No. :Afnpk 9669 M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Ms. Shreya Loyalka, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.N.Barnwal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 21/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 05.06.2024, Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, For The Assessment Year 2016-2017, On The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- I) That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(Appeals), Nfac, Delhi, Erred In Quashing The Order U/S.148A(D) & All Subsequent Proceedings. Ii) That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(Appeals), Nfac, Delhi, Failed To Acknowledge The Fact That The Assesse Had Not Expressed Any Grievance Against The Validity Of Order U/S 148A(D) By Moving Any Writ Petition Which Should Have Been Done In Case Of Any Grievance After Getting The Sald Order U/S.148A(D). Iii) That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(Appeals), Nfac, Delhi, Erred In Quashing The Order When The Ld. Cit(A) Has No Jurisdiction To Deal With The Question Whether The 148A(D) Order Was Passed Validly Or Properly As An Order U/S.148A(D) Is Not An Appealable Order Before Ld. Cit(A) As Per Section 246A.

For Appellant: Ms. Shreya Loyalka, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.N.Barnwal, CIT-DR
Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151Section 246ASection 3Section 69A

246A. 2 iv) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals), NFAC, Delhi, failed to appreciate the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashis Agarwal dated 04.05.2022 dealing with notices u/s.148 Issued between 01.04.2021 to 30.06.2021 which was followed by the AO by treating notice u/s.148 issued in un-amended provisions