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.

47 results for “transfer pricing”+ Capital Gainsclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,428Delhi1,871Bangalore876Chennai628Kolkata542Ahmedabad480Jaipur316Hyderabad289Pune255Surat239Cochin188Chandigarh185Indore182Karnataka65Nagpur65Visakhapatnam63Rajkot60Calcutta59Cuttack58Lucknow47Raipur41Telangana35SC34Amritsar30Guwahati27Agra18Ranchi13Jabalpur12Jodhpur10Kerala8Patna8Allahabad7Varanasi6Dehradun5Rajasthan5Orissa2Panaji2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1Punjab & Haryana1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1Andhra Pradesh1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1

Key Topics

Section 1144Addition to Income35Section 26321Section 2(15)20Section 143(3)20Section 14718Section 14817Section 10(38)17Section 12A16

INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(4), KANPUR vs. SHRI SANTOSH KUMAR AGARWAL, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 153/LKW/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow17 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 69A

transferred to the Demat account of the buyer, itself proves the genuineness of the purchase/sale transaction of shares having regard to the relevant provisions contained in the Depository Act The transaction made through Demat account is in itself an evidence to prove the genuineness of share transaction. Merely because the sale of shares fetched a handsome price, which price

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: Disposed

Showing 1–20 of 47 · Page 1 of 3

Disallowance16
Exemption14
Natural Justice14
ITAT Lucknow
14 Aug 2025
AY 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

Capital Gain. It is common in stock market that the price of some shares may rise high. An adverse view against an assessee cannot be taken merely because the price of a share in which the assessee invested, showed extraordinary price rise; unless there are materials to show that there was foul play behind the rise in price

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(3), KANPUR vs. SHRI RAJ KUMAR AGARWAL, KANPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 205/LKW/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow17 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri T.S. Kapoor

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 69A

transferred to the Demat account of the buyer, itself proves the genuineness of the purchase/sale transaction of shares having regard to the relevant provisions contained in the Depository Act The transaction made through Demat account is in itself an evidence to prove the genuineness of share transaction. Merely because the sale of shares fetched a handsome price, which price

SHRI ACHAL GUPTA,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 3(1), KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed and all the Stay

ITA 501/LKW/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow16 Dec 2020AY 2015-16

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

Section 68

transferred to the account of brokers M/s Edelwise Financial Advisors on account of sale is also apparent from this paper. The transaction statement placed in paper book also proves that assessee was holding a number of scrips. All the documents clearly demonstrate that assessee did earn long term capital gain and moreover the Assessing Officer has not doubted

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)

price was of Rs.90 lakhs, out of which, sale of agricultural land was of Rs.71,25,056/-, sale of building was of Rs.18,74,944/- and sale of machinery was of Rs.5 lakhs. Reducing the WDV of the building and the machinery, amounting to Rs.8,59,467/-, the assessee stated net short term capital gain of Rs.15

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

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

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

ITA 503/LKW/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow18 Jan 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2015-16

Section 68

transferred to the account of brokers M/s Edelwise Financial Advisors on account of sale is also apparent from this paper. The transaction statement placed in paper I.T.A. No.503/Lkw/2019 Assessment Year:2015-16 5 book also proves that assessee was holding a number of scrips. All the documents clearly demonstrate that assessee did earn long term capital gain and moreover

INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(1), KANPUR vs. SHRI ARVIND KUMAR GUPTA, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal is held to be allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 174/LKW/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SH.KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 268A

transfer of shares in the scrips of Kailash Auto Finance Limited. The ld. AO noted that a report had been circulated by the Directorate of Income Tax (Inv), Kolkata regarding, “bogus” LTCG arising out of trading in various penny stocks. The ld. AO noted that M/s Kailash Auto Finance Limited was listed as one of such penny stocks against which

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

Capital Gain on the scrip of M/s Goldline International Finvest Ltd. which appeared at Sl. No. 24 of the Investigation Report of the Department. The findings of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court are reproduced hereunder: “12. Mr. Hossain's submissions relating to the startling spike in the share price and other factors may be enough to show circumstances that

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

transfer certificate, copy of bank statement, copy of D-mat account, which are placed on record and are verificable.” Inspite of the above stated categorical office note recorded by Assessing Officer, the Ld. PCIT took the view that the Assessing Officer failed to make inquiries about the assessees claim for Long Term Capital Gain, and passed the aforesaid orders under

VINAI SHUKLA,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT-1, LUCKNOW NEW, LUCKNOW

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

ITA 624/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow12 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.624/Lkw/2024 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vinai Shukla V. Acit-1, Lucknow New 2/280, Vikas Khand Gomti Lucknow Nagar, Lucknow-226010. Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Lucknow-226001. Pan:Asnps3558C अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कक और से/Appellant By: Ms Shweta Mittal, Ca प्रत्यर्थी कक और से /Respondent By: Shri Prajesh Srivastava, Sr. Dr सुनवाई कक तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21 08 2025 घोर्णा कक तारीख/ Date Of 12 09 2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms Shweta Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Prajesh Srivastava, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 153Section 50C

Capital Gain and assessed total income at Rs.1,41,36,990/-. Aggrieved against this, the assessee carried the matter an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who after considering the submissions dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Now, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 3. The assessee has taken multiples grounds including the grounds that adequate opportunity

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

Capital Gains and Other Sources, as declared by the assessee. The ld. PCIT exercised the revisional jurisdiction under section 263 of the I.T. Act on those issues which were dealt with by the Assessing Officer in the original assessment order passed on 7.5.2013, and which issues did not form the subject-matter of the reassessment. This is beyond the period

ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW vs. M/S PRAG INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PVT. LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, appeal of Revenue and Cross Objection of assessee, both are dismissed

ITA 660/LKW/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat, Videshri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 40A(2)

Pricing provisions have no application in the present case for comparison of profits of Dehradun and Lucknow units of the assessee. Further, there is nothing on record to show that the assessee company had specified domestic transactions with its Associate Enterprises the aggregate of which exceeded Rs.20 cr. Further, we have already noted earlier that there was reasonable explanation

ISHWAR DWELLINGS PVT. LTD,KANPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 44/LKW/2021[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow17 May 2022AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2015-16

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2(14)Section 263

price paid is not decisive to say whether the land is agricultural or not. I.T.A. No.44/Lkw/2021 Assessment Year:2015-16 14 6.7 We may refer to a judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CWT vs. E. Udayakumar (2006) 284 ITR 511 (Mad) where the Hon'ble Madras High Court has referred to the decision

DCIT, RANGE-3, LUCKNOW vs. M/S. PRAYAGRAJ POWER GENERATION COMPANY LTD.,, NOIDA

In the result, ground no. 1 of appeal is dismissed and ground no

ITA 393/LKW/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow15 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 115J

transferred, shall be increased or decreased, as the case may be, by the amount or the aggregate of the amounts referred to in the said sub-clause relatable to such foreign operations. Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-section, the expression— (i) "year of convergence" means the previous year within which the convergence date falls; (ii) "convergence date" means

SAKET MURARKA,SITAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SITAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 2/LKW/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow20 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 Saket Murarka V. The Income Tax Officer Prop. M/S Murarka Brothers Sitapur Jail Road Sitapur Tan/Pan:Aaypm4558P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 18 03 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 20 03 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C(1)

Price (Circle Value) :Rs.63,59,700/- Purchase cost (27.08.2004) – Rs.14,00,000/- Stamp - Rs.02,03,300/- Total - Rs.16,03,300/- Cost index – (16,03,300X785/480) Indexed Cost :Rs.26,22,063/- L.T.C.G. :Rs.37,37,637/- ITA No.02/LKW/2025 Page 3 of 6 Invested (in residential house on 23.12.2011) :Rs.29,33,992/- Difference :Rs.8,03,645/- ½ share of the assessee :Rs.4

MR. PAWAN KUMAR SINGH,BAREILLY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BAREILLY

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

ITA 729/LKW/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Apr 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2009-10 Mr Pawan Kumar Singh V. Income Tax Officer Ward-2(1) 848, Tilak Colony, Subhash Nagar, Bareilly (Up). Bareilly. Pan:Ccrps4435G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Abhinav Mehrotra, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 22 04 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 04 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Abhinav Mehrotra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 50C

gain by applying provision of Section 50C of the Act. The contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee as recorded elsewhere in this order is that the Ld. CIT(A) as well as the assessing authority grossly failed to obtain valuation report from the DVO as contemplated u/s 50C of the Act. This contention of the assessee is strongly

NIRMAL SINGH,AYODHYA vs. ITO WARD-1,, FAIZABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 83/LKW/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow10 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria & Sa. No. 07/Lkw/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita. No.83/Lkw/2024 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Nirmal Singh The Income Tax Officer, V. 15/2/16, Janki Ghat, Ayodhya- Ward-1, 224123, Faizabad (Up). Cinema Road, Faizabad- New-224001. Pan:Bdsps4165C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri. Rakesh Garg, Adv Respondent By: Shri. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 24 09 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 10 10 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

Capital Gains. 3. However, as per the records of the department, it was noticed that the assessee has filed his ITR for the year under consideration declaring income of Rs.7,81,320/-. The Income declared by the assessee does not commensurate with the alleged transaction. These material facts were not fully and truly disclosed by assessee in the return

HARI SINGH CHAUHAN,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 3(5), AAYAKAR BHAWAN

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 344/LKW/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 Hari Singh Chouhan V. The Income Tax Officer 3(5) 1, Naramau Kanpur Kanpur Nagar (U.P) Tan/Pan:Askpc3749A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Srhi Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. O R D E R

For Appellant: Srhi Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 50CSection 55A

Capital Gains (LTCGs), which addition is contrary to facts bad in law be deleted. 4. Because the CIT(A) was not justified in not referring the matter to the Valuation Officer inspite of the assessee's specific request, failure to do so has made the order bad in law the same be quashed. ITA No.344/LKW/2023 Page

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

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 344/LKW/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 Hari Singh Chouhan V. The Income Tax Officer 3(5) 1, Naramau Kanpur Kanpur Nagar (U.P) Tan/Pan:Askpc3749A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Srhi Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. O R D E R

For Appellant: Srhi Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 50CSection 55A

Capital Gains (LTCGs), which addition is contrary to facts bad in law be deleted. 4. Because the CIT(A) was not justified in not referring the matter to the Valuation Officer inspite of the assessee's specific request, failure to do so has made the order bad in law the same be quashed. ITA No.344/LKW/2023 Page