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.

287 results for “reassessment”+ Capital Gainsclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,548Delhi1,194Chennai553Bangalore490Jaipur486Ahmedabad362Kolkata287Hyderabad219Pune193Chandigarh155Indore130Surat100Raipur94Visakhapatnam87Cochin82Nagpur78Rajkot58Guwahati55Amritsar55Lucknow49Agra34Karnataka32Patna31Ranchi21Cuttack20Jodhpur17SC12Jabalpur11Telangana10Dehradun10Allahabad9Varanasi5Panaji4Kerala3Calcutta3Orissa2K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1Gauhati1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 147134Section 148131Section 143(3)100Addition to Income70Reassessment42Reopening of Assessment40Section 25036Section 143(2)34Section 143(1)33

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

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

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

Showing 1–20 of 287 · Page 1 of 15

...
Section 6831
Section 148A28
Capital Gains25
ITA 141/KOL/2020[2013-14]Status: Disposed
ITAT Kolkata
20 Nov 2025
AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rakesh Mishra

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

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

ACIT, CIR-35, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI MANOJ MURARKA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 294/KOL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Dec 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी वसीम अहमद, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)

reassessment purpose, it was regarded by the AO as the accumulated profit of M/s. Batlivala & Karani Financial Consultants Pvt. Ltd. in which assessee was holding shares 41.84%, so according to AO, provision of Section 2 (22)(e) of the Act applies in assessee’s case. 4. Before the AO, the assessee submitted that the accumulated profit is in the negative

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

capital gains for the financial year 2006-07 relating to assessment year 2007- 08.” The assessee objected to the determination of valuation of property at Rs 5.5 crores which was only based on an estimate and also informed the ld AO that the valuation officer of income tax department had visited the premises in Bhiwani

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

capital gains for the financial year 2006-07 relating to assessment year 2007- 08.” The assessee objected to the determination of valuation of property at Rs 5.5 crores which was only based on an estimate and also informed the ld AO that the valuation officer of income tax department had visited the premises in Bhiwani

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)

capital gains of Rs 96,37,85,635/- had not been included by the assessee company in its return of income for the Asst Year 2006-07 and accordingly it had escaped assessment for which notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued . In the reassessment

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)

capital gains of Rs 96,37,85,635/- had not been included by the assessee company in its return of income for the Asst Year 2006-07 and accordingly it had escaped assessment for which notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued . In the reassessment

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)

capital gains of Rs 96,37,85,635/- had not been included by the assessee company in its return of income for the Asst Year 2006-07 and accordingly it had escaped assessment for which notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued . In the reassessment

ABC INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 11(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2673/KOL/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Apr 2026AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Abc India Limited Dcit, Circle 11(1) 40/8, Ballygunj, Circular Road, Aayakar Bhawan, Chowringhee Kolkata, West Bengal-700019 Square, Kolkata-700069 Vs. West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacca2035J Assessee By : Shri S.K. Pransukhka, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sanjib Kumar Paul, Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.04.2026

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Pransukhka, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjib Kumar Paul, DR
Section 119Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 14A

gain also to tax in that year which is undisputed and buyer company M/S IRC Natural Resources Limited also became the member of the said society in that year. The agreement of sale, possession letter of society member and certificate is available at page No. 86 to 103. Therefore, the decision passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court

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

reassessment proceedings, were rightly held to be not valid in law by the CIT(A). 19 M/s. Orchid Griha Nirman Pvt. Ltd. A.Yr.2008-09 27. As far as the question whether there was short term capital gain

LAKSHMI NARAYAN AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -WARD37(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1/KOL/2014[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Oct 2016AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.01/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2004-2005) Lakshmi Narayan Agarwal, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, “Sparsh”4Th Floor, 35/8, Ward-37(3), Kolkata- Poddopukur Road, Kolkata- 700001 700020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acvpa 3271 C .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri A.K.Tibrewal, Fca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Subhro Das, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 07/10/2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 19/10/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2004-2005, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xxiv, In Appeal No.1219/Cit(A)- Xxiv/Set-Aside/37(3)/12-13, Dated 19.12.2012, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S.147/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act (In Short The ‘Act’), Dated 29.12.2010. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee’S Income Tax Return For Assessment Year 2004-05 Was Assessed By Ao U/S.143(3) Of The Act. Subsequently, The Ao Detected That The Assessee Invested In A Property & Not Shown The Amount Of Capital Gain Of Rs.13,45,760/-. Therefore, The Ao Presumed That There Was An Excess Claim Of Rs.13,45,760/- U/S.54F Of It Act. Hence, Believing The Reason That Income Chargeable To Tax Escaped Assessment For The Year, The Ao Has Issued Notice U/S.148/147 Of The It Act. The Ao Observed That The Assessee Has Invested In A Property & Thus Claimed The Excess Amount

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Tibrewal, FCAFor Respondent: Subhro Das, JCIT
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54F

Capital Gain should be appropriated for purchasing of residential property which was the reason for the initiating such proceeding u/ s. 148 of the Act. In the instant case, proceedings for reassessment

DCIT, CIR-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ICI INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1021/KOL/2007[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Nov 2015AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 143(3)

capital gain cannot be computed. While taking this view, he derive support from the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.C.Srinivasa Setty 128 ITR 294 relied upon by the him. The ITAT Hyderabad Bench in the case of Coromandel Fertilisers Ltd. 90 ITD 439 (Hyd) (supra) held that it is not possible to determine the cost

ACIT, CIR-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ICI INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2355/KOL/2005[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Nov 2015AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 143(3)

capital gain cannot be computed. While taking this view, he derive support from the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.C.Srinivasa Setty 128 ITR 294 relied upon by the him. The ITAT Hyderabad Bench in the case of Coromandel Fertilisers Ltd. 90 ITD 439 (Hyd) (supra) held that it is not possible to determine the cost

ICI INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 850/KOL/2007[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Nov 2015AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 143(3)

capital gain cannot be computed. While taking this view, he derive support from the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.C.Srinivasa Setty 128 ITR 294 relied upon by the him. The ITAT Hyderabad Bench in the case of Coromandel Fertilisers Ltd. 90 ITD 439 (Hyd) (supra) held that it is not possible to determine the cost

BANABIR DASGUPTA,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-50(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as per the discussion made

ITA 2579/KOL/2013[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Mar 2019AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2579/Kol/2013 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2003-04)

For Appellant: Shri Banabir DasguptaFor Respondent: Shri Robin Chowdhury, Addl. CIT Sr. DR
Section 131Section 144Section 53A

reassessment proceedings.) The Assessing Officer then computed long term capital gain as follows: Capital gain computed in para 6 of this

SHRI JNANENDRA NATH BANERJEE,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-24(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1466/KOL/2014[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Dec 2016AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri J.P.Khaitan, Sr. Counsel &For Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2Section 50CSection 54Section 54ESection 54F

reassessment u/s 143(3)/147 of the Act was completed on 30.4.2009 . The capital gain on sale of the two flats

ITO, WD-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S NUPUR CARPETS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

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

ITA 436/KOL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jan 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.436/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08 I.T.O, Wd-12(1), Kolkata Vs. M/S Nupur Carpets Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, 23C, Ashutosh Chowdhury Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – Avenue, Kolkata – 700 019. 700 019. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aabcn 0170 A (Assessee) .. (Respondent) Assessee By :Shri Soumyajit Dasgupta, Addl. Cit Respondent By :Shri Sujoy Sen, Advocate. सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 21/11/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10/01/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2007-08, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–4, Kolkata In Appeal No.195/Cit(A)-4/Cir- 12/Kol/14-15, Dated 17.12.2015, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S.147/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 01.03.2013. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Read As Under: 1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred By Ignoring That The Assessee Kept On Changing As Per Its Own Liberty To Convert Stock-In-Trade To Investment & Vice Versa Year To Year As Per Its Convenience Specially, When The Assessee Failed To Adhere To Any Reasonable Basis & Fails To Apply Any Definite Method Of Categorizing The Income Whereas The Provisions On I.T. Act Are Differently Applicable On Business & On Investment.

For Appellant: Shri Soumyajit Dasgupta, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Sujoy Sen, Advocate
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Capital Gain in respect of A.Y. 2006-07 and 2008-09 were treated as business income while completing the assessment for the A.Y. 2006-07 and 2008-09. It is further seen that Brought forward loss/depreciation was not adjusted with the assessed income resulting in excess carry forward of loss/depreciation.” At the time of reassessment

INFINITY INFOTECH,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 329/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jun 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Dilip S.Damle, FCA &For Respondent: Shri Niraj Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 35Section 35(1)(iii)Section 35A

gain the Commissioner of Income Tax did not recommend filing of second appeal against CIT(A)'s said finding. It will therefore be appreciated that in the AY 2007-08 the administrative CIT in principle accepted that the Assessee's IT Park building was its "depreciable asset. The CIT however recommended the appeal against the relief allowed

GOPESHWAR PRASAD AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T CC - XII,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 474/KOL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Mar 2016AY 2006-07

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

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

reassessment proceedings, the assessee submitted that the land at Asansol was purchased by his father on 20.12.1971 and after his death, the assessee inherited the property from him. It was also submitted by the assesese that the sale of the said land did not give rise to any capital gain

SRI KANCHAN KAMAL MUKHOPADHYAY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-20(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 587/KOL/2014[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Jul 2017AY 2008-2009

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A Nos. 587 & 588/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Shri Kanchan Kamal Mukhopadhyay -Vs.- I.T.O., Ward-20(2) Kolkata Kolkata. [Pan : Aanpm 2997 B] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri Rip Das, Fca For The Respondent : None Date Of Hearing : 10.07.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 14.07.2017. Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rip Das, FCAFor Respondent: None
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 271(1)(c)

reassessment proceedings the AO noticed that the assessee had not disclosed interest on A.Yr.2008-09 savings bank account to the extent of Rs.2,224.34. The assessee agreed to the action of the AO in bringing to tax the aforesaid interest income after giving credit to TDS. The AO further noticed that the assessee had earned Short term capital gain