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.

304 results for “capital gains”+ Section 94(7)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,718Delhi1,313Bangalore552Chennai507Ahmedabad417Kolkata304Jaipur299Hyderabad218Chandigarh169Pune143Indore135Cochin132Karnataka132Raipur78Surat72Calcutta53Nagpur42Visakhapatnam41Lucknow39Cuttack35Rajkot32Guwahati26Agra19SC16Telangana15Amritsar14Jodhpur9Jabalpur8Dehradun7Allahabad6Varanasi6Panaji6Patna5Rajasthan5Kerala3Ranchi3A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Andhra Pradesh1Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)88Section 14A86Addition to Income63Disallowance40Section 25038Section 115J36Section 234E30Deduction29Section 143(2)26

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)

94,844/- 1,66,93,403/- 1,65,98,559/- Punji Lloyd 6000 8,98,800/- 28,51,897/- 11,83,957/- Skumarsynf 26000 20,05,249/- 34,16,761/- 14,11,511/- Tata Steel 1650 6,48,202/- 14,17,325/- 7,69,123/- 3 M/s.K.B.Capital Markets Ltd. A.Yr.2008-09 Tata

Showing 1–20 of 304 · Page 1 of 16

...
Section 26325
Section 80I22
Capital Gains22

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)

94,844/- 1,66,93,403/- 1,65,98,559/- Punji Lloyd 6000 8,98,800/- 28,51,897/- 11,83,957/- Skumarsynf 26000 20,05,249/- 34,16,761/- 14,11,511/- Tata Steel 1650 6,48,202/- 14,17,325/- 7,69,123/- 3 M/s.K.B.Capital Markets Ltd. A.Yr.2008-09 Tata

A.C.I.T.,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), KOLKATA vs. M/S ESTIN TIE UP PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the two cross appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 141/KOL/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 50C(1)Section 55A

capital gains as provided u/s 48(ii). The issue of cost in this case is governed by section 49(iii)(e) read with sec 47(vib). The cost of acquisition therefore is to be taken which was in the hands of the previous owner of the property. Since the property was acquired by the previous owner before 1.4.1981 the cost

M/S ESTIN TIE UP PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the two cross appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 32/KOL/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 50C(1)Section 55A

capital gains as provided u/s 48(ii). The issue of cost in this case is governed by section 49(iii)(e) read with sec 47(vib). The cost of acquisition therefore is to be taken which was in the hands of the previous owner of the property. Since the property was acquired by the previous owner before 1.4.1981 the cost

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)

94,34,666. Subsequently, there were negotiations between the parties and the price was increased to Rs.22,36,79,266/- on the basis that the said land measured 3,19,086 sq. ft. and accordingly, an agreement was entered into on June 14,2004. However, upon actual measurement the area of the land was found

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)

94,34,666. Subsequently, there were negotiations between the parties and the price was increased to Rs.22,36,79,266/- on the basis that the said land measured 3,19,086 sq. ft. and accordingly, an agreement was entered into on June 14,2004. However, upon actual measurement the area of the land was found

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)

section 147/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) dated 28.03.2014 for the Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. The only issue involved in this appeal is as to whether the ld CITA was justified in deleting the addition of Rs 96,37,85,635/- towards capital gains u/s 45(3) of the Act in the facts

ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. C.D. EQUIFINANCE PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed, while the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1790/KOL/2008[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2015AY 2005-06

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

Section 10(38)

94,523/-. In the said return, long-term capital gain on sale of shares made upto 30.09.2004 amounting to Rs.8,96,28,890/- was offered to tax by the assessee @ 10% while the long-term capital gain on sale of shares made after 01.10.2004 amounting to Rs.18,78,53,164/- was claimed to be exempt under section

INFINITY INFOTECH PARKS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-1, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 32/KOL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Apr 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am ]

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32Section 43(6)Section 50Section 72

94) (SC); (ii) Nandi Steels Ltd. Vs. ACIT (436 ITR 22S) (Kar HC); (iii) Digital Electronics ltd. Vs. ADIT (16 taxmann.com 316) (ITAT Mum) (iv) PCIT Vs. Alcon Developers (432 ITR 277) (Born HC) 7. The Ld. AR Shri Akkal Dudhwewala submitted that, instead of dealing with the submissions and judicial precedents placed on record by the assessee

SMT.BARNALI DHAR,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-34, KOLKATA

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

ITA 2193/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2015-16 Smt. Barnali Dhar Acit, Circle-34, Kolkata C/O. S.D. Verma, Advocate, 2Nd Floor, 7, Vs. Rabindra Sarani, Kolkata – 700 001. Pan: Ajppd 6989 D (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : None Respondent By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Acit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.07.2022 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year (In Short ‘A.Y.’) 2015-16 Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)- 10, Kolkata Dated 30.07.2019 Which Is Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(In Short ‘The Act’) Dated 27.12.2017. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That In The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A)- 10 Was Not Justified In Not Deleting A Sum Of Rs. 9933057/- Being The Amount Wrongly Included By The Appellant Under The Head Capital Gain, While Filing Return Of Income Whereas As Per Section 54F No Amount Is Liable To Be Taxed. 2. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add/Alter Or Modify Any Grounds Of Appeal At Hearing Stage.”

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, ACIT, DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 48Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 54FSection 55A

7. At the time of hearing the ld. AR submitted that the ld. CIT(A) did not decide core issue in connection with the appeal as appellant invested an aggregate sum of Rs. 1,16,57,772/- against net consideration of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- and thus no gain is taxable under the head of capital gain, since

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

capital loss /long- term capital gains as the case may be, we note that apart from placing reliance on the statements, the revenue authorities have also referred to the report of the investigation Wing which carried out search and survey in some other cases prior to the conclusion of assessment proceedings in the instant appeals and such investigation included

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

capital loss /long- term capital gains as the case may be, we note that apart from placing reliance on the statements, the revenue authorities have also referred to the report of the investigation Wing which carried out search and survey in some other cases prior to the conclusion of assessment proceedings in the instant appeals and such investigation included

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

capital loss /long- term capital gains as the case may be, we note that apart from placing reliance on the statements, the revenue authorities have also referred to the report of the investigation Wing which carried out search and survey in some other cases prior to the conclusion of assessment proceedings in the instant appeals and such investigation included

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

capital loss /long- term capital gains as the case may be, we note that apart from placing reliance on the statements, the revenue authorities have also referred to the report of the investigation Wing which carried out search and survey in some other cases prior to the conclusion of assessment proceedings in the instant appeals and such investigation included

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

94,34,666. Subsequently, there were negotiations between the parties and the price was increased to Rs.22,36,79,266/- on the basis that the said land measured 3,19,086 sq. ft. and accordingly, an agreement was entered into on June 14,2004. However, upon actual measurement the area of the land was found

ITO, WD-31(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI SHYAMA DEVI DALMIA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1422/KOL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap] I.T.A. No. 1422/Kol/2016 Assessment Year 2009-10 Income Tax Officer.............................…………………………………………………..Appellant 31(4), Kolkata 10B, Middleton Row, Kolkata – 700 71 Shyama Devi Dalmia....................……………………………………………Respondent Dalmia Mansion, 5, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata – 700 020 [Pan: Agbpd 5911 E] Appearances By: Shri Sailen Samaddar, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 28, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 05, 2018 Order This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (A) – 9, Kolkata 31.03.2016. 2. The First Issue Involved In This Case Relating To The Claim Of The Assessee For Loss Of Rs. 23,40,887/- From Mutual Fund Transactions Is Raised By The Revenue In Ground No 1 & 2 As Under: “1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & On Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Not Justified In Allowing Set Off Of Loss Of Rs. 23,40,887/- From Mutual Fund Transactions With The Profit Out Of Transactions In Shares, Securities Etc., Without Considering The Fact That The Assessee Has Treated These Under The Head “Investments” & Did Not Audit Her Accounts As Prescribed In Section 44Ab Of The I.T. Act, 1961 For Claiming The Transactions As Business Transactions. 2. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & On Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Not Justified In Holding That Provisions Of Section 94(7)/94(8) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Is Not Applicable In This Case For Earning Exempt Income

Section 44ASection 94(7)Section 94(8)

94(7) and ignored the loss of Rs. 23,40,887/- even for computing the income under the head ‘Capital Gains’. 4. The action of the A.O. in treating the loss from the transactions in mutual funds as a capital loss and ignoring the same even for computing the income under the head ‘Capital Gains’ by applying section

M/S. LEND LEASE COMPANY (INDIA) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, CIRCLE - 6, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 526/KOL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 May 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 526/Kol/2011 Assessment Year : 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Tulsiyan, FCA & Shri Amit Kr.Lal, ACAFor Respondent: Md.Ghayas Uddin, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 251Section 263Section 48

94,527/-. 7. Aggrieved by the order of AO the assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) in exercise of his power of enhancement was of the view that the gain on sale of shares ought to have been assessed by the AO under the head income from business and not under the head short term capital gain

JENNIFFER CHAKRAVARTY,SILIGURI vs. DCIT, CIR-3, SILIGURI, SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue (in ITA No

ITA 514/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jul 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.400/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit, Circle-1, Siliguri Vs. Smt. Jennifer Chakraborty St. Michael’S School, 2Nd Mile, Sevoke Road, Aayakar Bhawan, Paribahan Nagar, Matigra, Siliguri, Pin-734010. Siliguri "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acppc 9278 B (Revenue) .. (Assessee)

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 54

7. Learned counsel for the assessee begins by pointing out that the contention of the Ld. Assessing officer that the date of agreement cannot be regarded as date of acquisition is not correct. Section 45 of the Income Tax Act, 1962 states that any profit or gains arising from transfer of a capital asset shall be chargeable to income

DCIT, CIR-1, SILIGURI, SILIGURI vs. SMT JENNIFER CHAKRABORTY, SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue (in ITA No

ITA 400/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jul 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.400/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit, Circle-1, Siliguri Vs. Smt. Jennifer Chakraborty St. Michael’S School, 2Nd Mile, Sevoke Road, Aayakar Bhawan, Paribahan Nagar, Matigra, Siliguri, Pin-734010. Siliguri "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acppc 9278 B (Revenue) .. (Assessee)

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 54

7. Learned counsel for the assessee begins by pointing out that the contention of the Ld. Assessing officer that the date of agreement cannot be regarded as date of acquisition is not correct. Section 45 of the Income Tax Act, 1962 states that any profit or gains arising from transfer of a capital asset shall be chargeable to income

I.T.O WD - 2(3),KOLKATA., KOLKATA vs. M/S LGW LTD., NORTH 24 PARGANAS

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 267/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Oct 2015AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Tibrewal, FCA & Shri Amit Agarwal,AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sachidananda Srivastava, CIT(DR)
Section 14A

94 to 98 of the assessee’s paper book –(1). The CIT(A) taking note of the aforesaid evidence deleted the addition made by the AO. The limited request of the ld. DR before us is to set aside the order of CIT(A) and direct the AO to verify the claim made by the assessee as made before