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.

97 results for “capital gains”+ Natural Justiceclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi2,374Mumbai2,336Bangalore1,043Chennai887Ahmedabad709Kolkata614Jaipur600Hyderabad333Pune293Karnataka251Chandigarh240Indore236Surat183Raipur144Cochin138Visakhapatnam130Nagpur116Agra113Rajkot112Cuttack110Calcutta104Lucknow97Telangana75Guwahati65Amritsar52Panaji50Patna39Jabalpur35Jodhpur34Ranchi32SC31Dehradun25Allahabad18Kerala12Rajasthan10Punjab & Haryana9Varanasi9Orissa6Gauhati2Andhra Pradesh2ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1

Key Topics

Addition to Income70Section 14863Section 26360Natural Justice54Section 14750Section 1145Section 10(38)39Section 271(1)(c)38Section 143(3)33Exemption

SHRI KINGSHUK GHOSHAL,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-6(5), LUCKNOW

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 200/LKW/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Kinghshuk Ghoshal V. The Ito 6(5) E-402, Halwasiya Utsav Enclave Lucknow Opposite Hal, Faizabad Road Lucknow Tan/Pan:Affpg3258L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against Order Dated 26.12.2017, Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Lucknow-3 (Ld. Cit(A)) For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 29.11.2012, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.1,05,233/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer (Ao) Noticed That The Assessee Was Earning Interest Income From Saving Bank Deposits & Fdrs & That The Assessee Had Claimed Exemption Of Rs.71,54,619/- Under Section 54 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’). During The

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

Showing 1–20 of 97 · Page 1 of 5

29
Long Term Capital Gains27
Disallowance25
Section 45
Section 54
Section 80E

natural justice. 5.0 The Ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee (Ld. A.R.) submitted that the only issue in dispute before this Tribunal was the denial of benefit of section 54F of the Act to the tune of Rs.16,75,288/- being alleged unutilized capital gain

SMT. SABREEN,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(4), KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed and Stay Application is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 498/LKW/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow19 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 10Section 10(38)Section 144Section 38

justice and good conscience. 6. That the Ex Parte order based u/s 144 of the IT. Act 1961 is a straight denial of a reasonable and sufficient opportunity viz. absence of cross examination of witnesses a right the appellant legally deserves under the provisions of law leading to a hasty decision simply to adhere limitation. 7. That the authorities below

ZAIN ALAM,KANPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- II, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 64/LKW/2021[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Jul 2022AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

capital gain under the relevant section 10(38) of the IT Act, 1961. 7. That the alleged bogus share transaction cannot be taxed u/s 69A as the appellant has given the documentary evidence of sale and purchase at prevailing market rate on stock exchange. 8. That there has been no evidence as to the why the gain from the sale

SHAHEEN RABIA,KANPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -II, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 62/LKW/2021[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Jul 2022AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

capital gain under the relevant section 10(38) of the IT Act, 1961. 7. That the alleged bogus share transaction cannot be taxed u/s 69A as the appellant has given the documentary evidence of sale and purchase at prevailing market rate on stock exchange. 8. That there has been no evidence as to the why the gain from the sale

NISHAT ARA,KANPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 65/LKW/2021[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Jul 2022AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

capital gain under the relevant section 10(38) of the IT Act, 1961. 7. That the alleged bogus share transaction cannot be taxed u/s 69A as the appellant has given the documentary evidence of sale and purchase at prevailing market rate on stock exchange. 8. That there has been no evidence as to the why the gain from the sale

NAUSHEEN FARAH,KANPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 63/LKW/2021[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Jul 2022AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

capital gain under the relevant section 10(38) of the IT Act, 1961. 7. That the alleged bogus share transaction cannot be taxed u/s 69A as the appellant has given the documentary evidence of sale and purchase at prevailing market rate on stock exchange. 8. That there has been no evidence as to the why the gain from the sale

MARGHOOB ALAM,KANPUR vs. DCUT, CC-II, KANPUR, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 61/LKW/2021[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Jul 2022AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

capital gain under the relevant section 10(38) of the IT Act, 1961. 7. That the alleged bogus share transaction cannot be taxed u/s 69A as the appellant has given the documentary evidence of sale and purchase at prevailing market rate on stock exchange. 8. That there has been no evidence as to the why the gain from the sale

MAHESH MITTAL,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT, RANGE-5, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW

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

ITA 73/LKW/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow14 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshramahesh Mittal V. Acit, Range-5 1/16, Vinay Khand Gomti Income Tax Office Ashok Nagar, Lucknow-226010. Marg, Lucknow-226001. Pan:Acqpm4459B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Akshay Agarwal, Adv Respondent By: Shri Amit Singh Chauhan, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Akshay Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amit Singh Chauhan, CIT(DR)
Section 10(38)Section 68

natural justice i.e. appellant has been granted proper opportunity of being heard were allowed or not, has been properly followed. Considering the above facts, no further opportunity is allowed and the appeal is being decided on the material available on records. 5.1 Ground No.1: Ld. AO erred in facts and in law making the, addition of capital gain

HARVINDER KUMAR SAHNI,LAKHIMPUR-KHERI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SITAPUR

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 28/LKW/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow19 Mar 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 Harvinder Kumar Sahni V. The Dy. Cit Punjabi Colony Sitapur Gola Gokaran Nath Lakhimpur Kheri Tan/Pan:Autps9076M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri K.R. Rastogi, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Ajay Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 16 03 2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 19 03 2020 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar, D.R
Section 2(14)

Capital Gain on Sale of Agriculture Land without appreciating that the Agriculture Land is not an asset u/s 2(14) of I. T. Act. 2. The Ld. C.I.T. (A) fails to appreciate that only on a part of entire agriculture land the rice mill was installed. On remaining agriculture land, agriculture operations were carried out till the date of sale

SHRI SWATANTRA KUMAR SHUKLA,KANPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 575/LKW/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow24 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2015-16 Swatantra Kumar Shukla, Vs. Dy. Cit-3, Kanpur 61/139, Sita Ram Mohal, Kanpur- 208001 (U.P.) Pan: Acaps5484N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.11.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)- 1, Kanpur, Passed On 29.07.2019 Wherein The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Act For The A.Y. 2015-16 On 29.12.2017 Has Been Dismissed. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1. That The Ld Cit(A) Was Wrong In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 1,39,81,850- Made By The Ao Without Any Valid Reason. 2. That The Revenue Was Wrong In Disallowing The Claim Of Long Term Capital Gains U/S 10(38) Of The Act & The Same Is Against Facts & Law. 3. That The Various Case Law Cited By The Revenue In Rejecting The Claim Is Wrong In As Much As The Facts Of The Appellant'S Case Are Distinguishable From The Cited Case Law. 4. That The Revenue Was Wrong In Invoking Section 68 Of The Act & The Same Is Not Justified & Unwarranted. 5. That It Was Wrong On The Part Of Revenue To Invoke Section 68 Of The Act In As Much As Initial Onus On The Assessee To Establish Identity, Credit Capacity Of The Creditor & Genuineness Of The Transaction Was Discharged. 6. That The Finding Of The Ld Ao That 'Long Term Capital Gains Of Rs.1 39,81,850/ Claimed By The Assessee Is Held To Have Been Arranged By The Assessee Through

For Appellant: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68

Capital Gains of Rs.1 39,81,850/ claimed by the Assessee is held to have been arranged by the Assessee through 1 Shri Swatantra Kumar Shukla A.Y. 2015-16 accommodation entries' is based on presumption and without any cogent evidence in support thereof. 7. That the Revenue was wrong to conclude that due to astrominical increase in share price without

SHILPA KHANDELWAL,BAREILLY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, BAREILLY

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

ITA 313/LKW/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow24 Apr 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2015-16 Smt. Shilpa Khandelwal V. The Dy. Cit-2 330, Kalibari Bareilly Bareilly (U.P) Tan/Pan:Arypk5700A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 27 02 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24 04 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R
Section 10(38)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 68

natural justice. 5. The Ld. A.R., appearing on behalf of the assessee, submitted that the authorities below have erred, both in law as well as on facts in denying the assessee’s claim for exemption under section 10(38) of the Act in respect of Long Term Capital Gain

PREM MANOHAR GUPTA,KANPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, KANPUR

In the result, appeal in I

ITA 511/LKW/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow03 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 251Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

natural justice. Hon'ble Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Naresh Sunderlal Chug vs. Income Tax Officer [2018] 171 ITD 116 (Pune Trib.), vide order dated I.T.A. No.511 & 512/Lkw/2017 Assessment Year:2012-13 6 12/04/2018 has held that CIT(A) cannot enhance the assessment without giving an opportunity or show cause notice of enhancement to the assessee

PREM MANOHAR GUPTA,KANPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, KANPUR

In the result, appeal in I

ITA 512/LKW/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow03 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 251Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

natural justice. Hon'ble Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Naresh Sunderlal Chug vs. Income Tax Officer [2018] 171 ITD 116 (Pune Trib.), vide order dated I.T.A. No.511 & 512/Lkw/2017 Assessment Year:2012-13 6 12/04/2018 has held that CIT(A) cannot enhance the assessment without giving an opportunity or show cause notice of enhancement to the assessee

SHRI CHETAN SHARMA,KANPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), KANPUR

In the result, both appeals are allowed

ITA 343/LKW/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

For Appellant: Shri Samrat Chandra, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl
Section 153DSection 263

capital gains on the shares sold. Also, on perusal of the order passed by Pr. CIT u/s 263 of the I.Tax Act, 1961, and plain reading of the of Para 2 at Page 1 of the order it is evident that the whole proceedings were initiated on the behest of the Assessing Officer. “It has been bought to the notice

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KANPUR vs. SMT. SHEHLA AHMED , KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 181/LKW/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2013-14 Dy. Cit-1 V. Smt. Shehla Ahmad Kanpur 376-C, Allied Street Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aexpa4122N (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.09/Lkw/2018 [In Ita No.181/Lkw/2018] Assessment Year: 2013-14 Smt. Shehla Ahmad V. Dy. Cit-1 376-C, Allied Street Kanpur Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aexpa4122N (Cross-Objector) (Respondent) Department By: Shri R. K. Vishvakarma, D.R. Assessee By: Shri Swarn Singh, Fca Date Of Hearing: 24 07 2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 22 08 2019 O R D E R Per A. D. Jain, V.P.: This Is Revenue’S Appeal & Assessee’S Cross Objection Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-Ii, Kanpur, Dated 1/12/2017, For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Revenue Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Ii, Kanpur Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Deleting The Penalty Of Rs.22,00,000/- Imposed By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Undisclosed

For Appellant: Shri Swarn Singh, FCAFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Vishvakarma, D.R
Section 10(38)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40a

capital gain, while filing the return of her income, therefore, the Ld. AO was not justified in levying the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In the proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, onus is on the AO to prove what are the facts or records submitted by assessee that

HARCHARAN SINGH,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(5), KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 201/LKW/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.201/Lkw/2022 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2013-14 Harcharan Singh V. Ito-2(5) 118/208, Kaushalpuri, Kanpur- Kanpur 208012. Pan:Anxps2189N अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कक और से/Appellant By: None प्रत्यर्थी कक और से /Respondent By: Shri Deepak Yadav, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई कक तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 10 06 2025 घोर्णा कक तारीख/ Date Of 30 06 2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Yadav, CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50C

Gain at Rs.1,56,21,620/- by treating the sale plots of land as sale of capital asset simpliciter (instead of treating the same as stock-in-trade); 6. the order appealed against is contrary to facts, law and principles of Natural justice

SHIMLA PROPERTIES,LUCKNOW vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

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

ITA 113/LKW/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow01 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2012-13 Shimla Properties V. The Pcit 30C, Datiya House Lucknow Khursheed Bagh Lucknow Tan/Pan:Ablfs9732M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Neeraj Kumar, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 16 08 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 01 09 2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Neeraj Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 263

natural justice. 2. The assessee has also raised the following Additional Grounds: “10. BECAUSE the impugned order passed by the Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow-1 is barred by limitation as specified in sub-section (2) of section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and consequently, the said order deserves to be held as illegal being wholly without

USHA YADAV,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER RANGE 6(2), LUCKNOW

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 249/LKW/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow09 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri Dharmendra Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 10(37)Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)(iii)Section 271(1)(c)

gains fall under clause (a) of section 10(37) of the Act. vi. Appellant never claimed exemption from income tax for transfer of agricultural land, while claiming said land being not a capital asset. Whereas, appellant claimed exemption for the very reason that land transferred is an agricultural land, which is a capital asset. Income tax on transfer of such

USHA YADAV,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER RANGE 6(2), LUCKNOW

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 251/LKW/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow09 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri Dharmendra Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 10(37)Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)(iii)Section 271(1)(c)

gains fall under clause (a) of section 10(37) of the Act. vi. Appellant never claimed exemption from income tax for transfer of agricultural land, while claiming said land being not a capital asset. Whereas, appellant claimed exemption for the very reason that land transferred is an agricultural land, which is a capital asset. Income tax on transfer of such

MOHAMMED JUNED SIDDIQUI,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT/ACIT-1, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 76/LKW/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2016-17 Mohammed Juned Siddiqui, Vs. Dcit/Acit-1, C-84/2, Sarvodaya Nagar, Indira Lucknow New Nagar, Lucknow-226016 Pan: Aqnps6188G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Samrat Chandra Ca & Ms. Gurneet Kaur, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.08.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Lucknow Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 20.11.2024, Dismissing The Appeals Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Ao Dated 30.12.2018, Passed Under Section 143(3). The Grounds Of Appeal In Both The Appeals Are As Under: - “1. Because On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Is Bad In Law & Deserves To Be Quashed Being Illegal. 2. Because On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Is Bad Ld. Cit(A) Confirmed The Addition Of Rs.11,38,70,742/- Under The Head Capital Gain, Which Was Exempt U/S 10(37) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & Not Allowing The Benefit Of Provision Of Rfctlarr Act, 2013. 3. Because On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Has Confirmed The Addition Of Rs. 11,38,70,742/- Only On The Basis Of Roving Enquiries Without Providing An Opportunity Of Being Heard. 4. Because Without Considering The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Has Confirmed The Addition Of 6,98,27,344/- Under The Head Capital Gains Being Amount

For Appellant: Sh. Samrat Chandra CA & Ms. GurneetFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR
Section 10(37)Section 143(3)Section 250

Capital Gains being amount 1 A.Y. 2016-17 Mohammed Juned Siddiqui received by the assessee on behalf of Shri Ram Adhar as POA holder which was subsequently given to him. 5. Because without considering the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition of 6,98,27,344/- only on the basis of statement