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.

503 results for “capital gains”+ Section 250(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,052Delhi1,032Kolkata503Bangalore497Chennai441Ahmedabad412Jaipur383Surat257Pune220Hyderabad219Chandigarh177Cochin139Indore123Karnataka114Amritsar89Panaji84Visakhapatnam71Rajkot67Raipur67Nagpur66Patna63Calcutta54Cuttack53Lucknow46Agra36Guwahati31Jodhpur25Dehradun24Ranchi17Jabalpur14Allahabad14Telangana10Varanasi10SC9Rajasthan3Andhra Pradesh1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 25089Addition to Income74Section 14A58Section 14756Section 143(3)45Section 6834Section 14831Capital Gains30Disallowance29Section 143(1)

RAVI JALAN,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 36(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, Ground r.w

ITA 2292/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jan 2020AY 2012-13
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 47Section 56(2)(vii)

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’), dt. 08/09/2017, for the Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The assessee is an individual and is engaged in the business of trading in stock, under the name and style of M/s. Ravi Jalan, sole proprietor concern. He filed his return of income on 04/09/2012 declaring total income of Rs.3

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA vs. SMT. SHIKHA ROY, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Showing 1–20 of 503 · Page 1 of 26

...
25
Section 1020
Deduction18
ITA 1915/KOL/2019[2016-17]Status: Disposed
ITAT Kolkata
25 Nov 2020
AY 2016-17
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54ESection 54F

1, (hereinafter the “ld. CIT(A)”), passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’), dt. 01/05/2019, for the Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. There is a delay of 9 (nine) days in filing of this appeal. After perusing the petition for condonation of delay, we are convinced that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause in filing

RAM NIRANJAN BANKA,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 40,, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 752/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Nov 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Ram Niranjan Banka Acit, Circle-40 1, Surti Bagan Street, Jorasanko, 3, Govt. Place (West), Vs. Kolkata-700073, West Bengal Kolkata-700001, West Bengal (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aedpb5273P Assessee By : Shri Manish Tiwari, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, DR
Section 54(1)(ii)

250 Deduct: cost of construction paid to Developer for area set apart for Original Lessor (44,26,906) & indexed cost of land 60,22,089 not considered (15,95,183) Long term Capital gain on transfer of land proportionate to Developer’s allocation 4,65,63,334 5,42,02,854 3.3. As regards computation of capital gains on transfer

RAI BHAGWAN DAS BAGLA BAHADURS MARWARI HINDU HOSPITAL,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 49(3) NOW, I.T.O., WARD - 44(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1119/KOL/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Dec 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Rai Bhagwan Das Bagla Ito, Ward-49(3), Bahadurs Marwari Hindu 3, Govt. Place (West), Hospital Kolkata-700001, Vs. 1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Martin West Bengal Burn House, Kolkata-700001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aactr1297C Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhary, Ar Revenue By : Shri Prabhakar Prakash Ranjan, Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.12.2024

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhary, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Prakash Ranjan, DR
Section 142(1)Section 45Section 50Section 50C

250 dated 15.3.2024 to comply on or before 22.3.2024 of why the gain resulting from the transfer of the depreciable capital asset should not be considered as a short-term capital gain in accordance with section 50 of the Act. The appellant responded vaguely by saying 'medical ground' without elaborating on who fell ill and how the alleged illness hindered

INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-23(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SUDIP ROY, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is allowed partly

ITA 2864/KOL/2013[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Oct 2016AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Years:2007-08

Section 143(3)Section 54ESection 55A

250 and completed assessment accordingly Whether since assessee inflated market value of property as on 1- 4-1981 with motive of avoiding capital gain, action of Assessing Officer in ITA No.2864/Kol/2013 A.Y.2007-08 ITO Ward-23(3), Kol. vs. Sudip Roy Page 5 making reference to DVO while not accepting valuation shown by assessee on basis of registered valuer’s report

M/S. ELECTROSTEEL CASTING LIMITED.,KOLKATA vs. ITO (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) WARD, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 140/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey)

Section 133(6)Section 201(1)Section 250Section 9(1)(vii)Section 9(2)

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ for short), wherein he confirmed the order passed by the Assessing Officer (‘AO’ for short) u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act on 03.03.2016. Facts of the case are as follows: “The appellant is engaged in the business of manufacturing of CI Pipes, DI Pipes and fittings, Pig Iron Sponge

SINGHANIA & SONS (P) LTD,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 10(2), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed

ITA 412/KOL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Dec 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Hon’Ble Vice-, Kz) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Singhania & Sons Pvt. Ltd…………...............................................................………………….............Appellant 3D, Duckback House 41, Shakespeare Sarani Kolkata – 700 017 [Pan : Aadcs 6078 A] Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- Nfac...............................................………..…......Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manoj Katarua, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Biswanath Das, Addl. Cit, D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue.

Section 14ASection 250

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’). 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised as many as five (5) grounds of appeal out of which Ground No. 1 is not pressed by the ld. Counsel for the assessee at the time of hearing before the Tribunal while Ground No. 5 is general in nature. 3. The issue

ITO, WD-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ORCHID GRIHA NIRMAN PRIVATE LTD., KOLKATA

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

ITA 569/KOL/2015[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Sept 2018AY 2006-2007

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 569/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2006-07 Ito, Ward-1(4), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Orchid Griha Nirman Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aaaco 7148 L ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Goulean Hangshing, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 45(3)

1 to 124 of the paper book. The primary facts stated hereinabove remain undisputed and 10 11 M/s Orchid Griha Nirman Pvt. Ltd. A.Yr.2006-07 hence the same are not reiterated for the sake of brevity. It is not in dispute that the assessee along with other two partner companies had given land held as stock in trade

ITO, WD-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BLUE HEAVEN GRIHA NIRMAN PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

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

ITA 570/KOL/2015[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Aug 2018AY 2006-2007

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 570/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2006-07 Ito, Ward-1(4), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Blue Heaven Griha Nirman Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aaccb 3287 F ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Goulean Hangshing, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 45(3)

1 to 124 of the paper book. The primary facts stated hereinabove remain undisputed and hence the same are not reiterated for the sake of brevity. It is not in dispute that the assessee along with other two partner companies had given land held as stock in trade as their capital contribution in the partnership firm M/s Salarpuria Soft Zone

ITO, WD-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S COMMAND CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

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

ITA 571/KOL/2015[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2018AY 2006-2007

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A T Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 571/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2006-07 Ito, Ward-1(4), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Command Constructions Private Ltd. [Pan: Aaccc5075A ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Md.Usman, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 45(3)

1 to 124 of the paper book. The primary facts stated hereinabove remain undisputed and hence the same are not reiterated for the sake of brevity. It is not in dispute that the assessee along with other two partner companies had given land held as stock in trade as their capital contribution in the partnership firm M/s Salarpuria Soft Zone

UTSAV JAIN,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O, WD29(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 1514/KOL/2013[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jun 2016AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year :2009-10 Utsav Jain V/S. Ito, Ward-29(4), 90C Alipur Road, Aaykar Bhawan, 2, Kolkata-700 027 Gariahat Road, [Pan No.Agrpj 4300 R] Kolkataa-700 068 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 234C

250/-. The above facts clearly prove that the property was held for less than three years and there was a short term capital gain of Rs.52,47,000/-.” ITA No.1514/Kol/2013 A.Y.2009-10 Utsav Jain v. ITO Wd-29(4) Kol. Page 5 Being aggrieved by this order of Ld. CIT(A) assessee preferred second appeal before us. 4. Before

M/S PREMIER IRRIGATION ADRITEC (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-11(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 387/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 2(24)Section 250Section 3Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). 2. The assessee, in this appeal, has taken the following grounds of appeal: “1. That the Leaned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.10,10,774 made by the Assessing Officer invoking the provisions of section 43B of the Income

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. JCT LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 84/KOL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S. Godara]

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32(2)

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ for short) for AY 2011-12. 2. Facts as brought out by the ld. CIT(A) are extracted for ready reference: “1.0. The appellant is a Public Limited Company and is a member of Thapar Group engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of Textiles, Yarns, Nylon and Polyester Filament

JCT LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2389/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S. Godara]

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32(2)

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ for short) for AY 2011-12. 2. Facts as brought out by the ld. CIT(A) are extracted for ready reference: “1.0. The appellant is a Public Limited Company and is a member of Thapar Group engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of Textiles, Yarns, Nylon and Polyester Filament

BIMLA DEVI AGRAWAL,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T./D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 34, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1690/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 155(15)Section 250

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2017-18 dated 28.06.2024, which has been passed against the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated 06.04.2021. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. FOR that the Ld. CIT(Appeals) was wrong

PRATIK AGARWAL BENEFICIARY TRUST ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, C.C.-3(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed as per the terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 2068/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(2)Section 250

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the “Act”) by ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-21, Kolkata [in short “ld. CIT(A)”]. 2. As the issues raised in these appeals are mostly common and the facts are almost identical, therefore, as agreed by both the parties, these are heard together and being disposed

M/S. NISHIT AGARWAL BENEFICIARY TRUST ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC - 3(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed as per the terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 983/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(2)Section 250

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the “Act”) by ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-21, Kolkata [in short “ld. CIT(A)”]. 2. As the issues raised in these appeals are mostly common and the facts are almost identical, therefore, as agreed by both the parties, these are heard together and being disposed

M/S. GATEWAY FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC - 3(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed as per the terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 982/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(2)Section 250

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the “Act”) by ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-21, Kolkata [in short “ld. CIT(A)”]. 2. As the issues raised in these appeals are mostly common and the facts are almost identical, therefore, as agreed by both the parties, these are heard together and being disposed

PINKY AGARWAL ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC-3(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed as per the terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 984/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(2)Section 250

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the “Act”) by ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-21, Kolkata [in short “ld. CIT(A)”]. 2. As the issues raised in these appeals are mostly common and the facts are almost identical, therefore, as agreed by both the parties, these are heard together and being disposed

DALMIA LAMINATORS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 7(1), KOLKATA

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

ITA 106/KOL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(3)Section 2(24)Section 250Section 3Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 68

250 of the ld. CIT(Appeals) confirming the additions and disallowances made by learned assessing officer is contrary to the law and facts of the case. ii. That the ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in law as well as in facts of the case by confirming the addition made by the ld. AO who treated the increase in share capital