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.

14 results for “capital gains”+ Section 272Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai61Delhi29Mumbai18Surat15Kolkata14Bangalore14Ahmedabad11Hyderabad5Jaipur5Chandigarh4Agra3Pune2SC2Lucknow1Indore1Cochin1

Key Topics

Section 234E90Section 200A48Section 133(6)9Deduction9TDS9Section 2008Penalty4Capital Gains4Section 272A(1)(d)3Section 272A

PASSPORT JEANS PVT LTD ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 575/KOL/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal]

Section 200ASection 234E

272A became redundant and by adding a proviso to the said section, this effect was therefore limited upto 01.07.2012. 17. In essence, section 234E thus prescribed for the first time charging of a fee for every day of default in filing of statement under sub-section (3) of section 200 or any proviso to sub-section (3) of section 206C

BHASKAR ROY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TDS 1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

ITA 415/KOL/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Dec 2021
3
Section 272A(2)(c)3
Long Term Capital Gains3
AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

Section 200Section 200ASection 234E

272A became redundant and by adding a proviso to the said section, this effect was therefore limited upto 01.07.2012. 17. In essence, section 234E thus prescribed for the first time charging of a fee for every day of default in filing of statement under sub-section (3) of section 200 or any proviso to sub-section (3) of section 206C

BHASKAR ROY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TDS 1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

ITA 417/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

Section 200Section 200ASection 234E

272A became redundant and by adding a proviso to the said section, this effect was therefore limited upto 01.07.2012. 17. In essence, section 234E thus prescribed for the first time charging of a fee for every day of default in filing of statement under sub-section (3) of section 200 or any proviso to sub-section (3) of section 206C

BHASKAR ROY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TDS 1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

ITA 416/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

Section 200Section 200ASection 234E

272A became redundant and by adding a proviso to the said section, this effect was therefore limited upto 01.07.2012. 17. In essence, section 234E thus prescribed for the first time charging of a fee for every day of default in filing of statement under sub-section (3) of section 200 or any proviso to sub-section (3) of section 206C

BHASKAR ROY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TDS 1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

ITA 419/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

Section 200Section 200ASection 234E

272A became redundant and by adding a proviso to the said section, this effect was therefore limited upto 01.07.2012. 17. In essence, section 234E thus prescribed for the first time charging of a fee for every day of default in filing of statement under sub-section (3) of section 200 or any proviso to sub-section (3) of section 206C

BHASKAR ROY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TDS 1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

ITA 421/KOL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

Section 200Section 200ASection 234E

272A became redundant and by adding a proviso to the said section, this effect was therefore limited upto 01.07.2012. 17. In essence, section 234E thus prescribed for the first time charging of a fee for every day of default in filing of statement under sub-section (3) of section 200 or any proviso to sub-section (3) of section 206C

BHASKAR ROY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TDS 1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

ITA 422/KOL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

Section 200Section 200ASection 234E

272A became redundant and by adding a proviso to the said section, this effect was therefore limited upto 01.07.2012. 17. In essence, section 234E thus prescribed for the first time charging of a fee for every day of default in filing of statement under sub-section (3) of section 200 or any proviso to sub-section (3) of section 206C

BHASKAR ROY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TDS 1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

ITA 418/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

Section 200Section 200ASection 234E

272A became redundant and by adding a proviso to the said section, this effect was therefore limited upto 01.07.2012. 17. In essence, section 234E thus prescribed for the first time charging of a fee for every day of default in filing of statement under sub-section (3) of section 200 or any proviso to sub-section (3) of section 206C

BHASKAR ROY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TDS 1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

ITA 420/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

Section 200Section 200ASection 234E

272A became redundant and by adding a proviso to the said section, this effect was therefore limited upto 01.07.2012. 17. In essence, section 234E thus prescribed for the first time charging of a fee for every day of default in filing of statement under sub-section (3) of section 200 or any proviso to sub-section (3) of section 206C

SRI SANJAY MEHTA,KOLKATA vs. THE ADDL. CIT, RANGE-36, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeals are allowed

ITA 45/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 133(6)Section 272ASection 272A(2)(c)

272A(2)(c) of the Act on account of his alleged failure to answer / furnish necessary information to the Assessing Officer in response to section 133(6) notice. The said common notice dated 10.09.2015 sought assessee’s necessary information from the assessee seeking details of alleged bogus long term capital gains

SRI SANJAY MEHTA,KOLKATA vs. THE ADDL. CIT, RANGE-36, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeals are allowed

ITA 44/KOL/2017[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jul 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 133(6)Section 272ASection 272A(2)(c)

272A(2)(c) of the Act on account of his alleged failure to answer / furnish necessary information to the Assessing Officer in response to section 133(6) notice. The said common notice dated 10.09.2015 sought assessee’s necessary information from the assessee seeking details of alleged bogus long term capital gains

SRI SANJAY MEHTA,KOLKATA vs. THE ADDL. CIT, RANGE-36, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeals are allowed

ITA 46/KOL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jul 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 133(6)Section 272ASection 272A(2)(c)

272A(2)(c) of the Act on account of his alleged failure to answer / furnish necessary information to the Assessing Officer in response to section 133(6) notice. The said common notice dated 10.09.2015 sought assessee’s necessary information from the assessee seeking details of alleged bogus long term capital gains

SRI SIBENDU BASU,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR.-54, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 315/KOL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Dec 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M. Jagtap] I.T.A. No. 315/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Sibendu Basu.............................………………………………………….............Appellant 39A, Townshend Road, Ground Floor, Kolkata – 700 025 [Pan : Aecpb 9682 F] D.C.I.T. Cir-54 Kolkata...................……………………………………………….......Respondent 54/1, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road, Kolkata – 700 016 Appearances By: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Satyajit Mondal, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 31, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 22, 2017 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (Appeals) – 21, Kolkata Dated 03.01.2017. 2. The Issue Involved In Ground No 1 Relates To The Addition Of Rs. 5,34,700/- Made By The A.O. & Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) On Account Of Disallowance Of Fund Mobilisation Expenses. 3. The Assessee In The Present Case Is An Individual Who Derives Income From Legal Profession, Commission & Brokerage From Insurance & Mutual Funds Companies, Long Term & Short Term Capital Gains Etc. The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration Was Filed By Him 30.10.2006 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs. 2,66,160/-. In The Profit & Loss Account Filed Along With The Said

Section 131

capital gains etc. The return of income for the year under consideration was filed by him 30.10.2006 declaring a total income of Rs. 2,66,160/-. In the profit and loss account filed along with the said 2 I.T.A. No. 315/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Sibendu Basu return, a sum of Rs. 5,96,550/- was debited by the assessee

KRISHNA CHANDRA DAS,TWENTY FOUR PARGANAS SOUTH vs. I.T.O., WARD - 25(1),, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1804/KOL/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Dec 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2019-20 Krishna Chandra Das..……………..………………….……….……….……Appellant Ramkrishnanagar Laskarpur, Alipore, 24 Parganas (S), W.B - 743515. [Pan: Ajapd6700B] Vs. Ito, Ward-25(1), Kolkata………….…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri B. B. Payra, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Dipu Koley, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 27, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 02, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 24.06.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2019–20. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Not Filed Original Return Of Income For The A.Y. 2019-20. In The Absence Of Voluntary Compliance, The Assessing Officer Initiated Reassessment Proceedings U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Act By Making Following Additions:

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 15Section 250Section 272A(1)(d)Section 45Section 56Section 69ASection 69B

Capital Gain u/s 45 amounting to Rs. 2,25,001/-. ii. Income from other sources u/s 56 amounting to Rs. 84,644/-. iii. Salary Received u/s 15 amounting to Rs. 34,64,292/-. iv. Unexplained Investment U/s 69B amounting to Rs.70,79,999/-. Krishna Chandra Das v. Unexplained Money U/s 69A amounting to Rs. 19,64,920/- 2.1 During