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.

11 results for “capital gains”+ Section 142A(6)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi30Chandigarh12Mumbai11Jaipur11Bangalore10Hyderabad8Kolkata7Nagpur7Raipur6Chennai6Pune6Indore5Lucknow5Agra3Ahmedabad3Surat3Visakhapatnam2Karnataka1Jabalpur1Cuttack1Rajkot1Cochin1Allahabad1

Key Topics

Section 14815Section 143(3)9Section 1519Section 56(2)(vii)8Section 2638Section 43C7Section 1476Addition to Income4Section 55A3Reassessment

SMT. MONICA CHATTOPADHYA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-28(2), MUMBAI

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

ITA 2369/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blesmt. Monica Chattopadhya V. Acit – Circle – 28(2) 321, Reena Complex Tower No. 6 R.N. Road, Vidyavihar (W) Vashi Railway Commercial Complex Navi Mumbai-400703 Mumbai – 400086 Pan: Ajipc1975D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Malav P. Sheth Department By : Mahita Nair

For Appellant: Malav P. ShethFor Respondent: Mahita Nair
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 54

6 months from the end of the month in which the reference is made. Thus even on a without prejudice and without admitting basis, Your Honours will appreciate that the impugned report of the DVO is in violation of the provisions of section 142A as well and should be outrightly rejected as it has no locus standi. 24. Reliance

3
Reopening of Assessment3
Capital Gains2

ACC LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3135/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 55A

6 ITA NO.3135& 3136/MUM/2019 (A.Y: 2009-10) M/s. ACC Limited by assessee in return of income based upon registered valuer’s report. On perusal of reasons’ recorded, it is apparent that AO has issued notice u/s 148 of the Act based upon such DVO’s report and no other evidences are available with Assessing Officer to justify reassessment proceedings

DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI vs. ACC LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3176/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 55A

6 ITA NO.3135& 3136/MUM/2019 (A.Y: 2009-10) M/s. ACC Limited by assessee in return of income based upon registered valuer’s report. On perusal of reasons’ recorded, it is apparent that AO has issued notice u/s 148 of the Act based upon such DVO’s report and no other evidences are available with Assessing Officer to justify reassessment proceedings

ACC LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3136/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 55A

6 ITA NO.3135& 3136/MUM/2019 (A.Y: 2009-10) M/s. ACC Limited by assessee in return of income based upon registered valuer’s report. On perusal of reasons’ recorded, it is apparent that AO has issued notice u/s 148 of the Act based upon such DVO’s report and no other evidences are available with Assessing Officer to justify reassessment proceedings

ALPEX HOLDINGS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 6, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3319/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negialpex Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai 400 013 Pan:Aaacn 7738H ...... Appellant Vs. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -6, Room No.501, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai- 400 020 .... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ronak D. DoshiFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Meena
Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

142A of the Act for arriving at the fair-market value of the shares for the purpose of dividend distribution tax evaded by the company when it transferred the Preference shares to PIPL, a group-concern; and, to pass on the details of correct and appropriate valuation of Preference shares to the Assessing authority of PIPL for taking remedial action

ITO 2(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. SATURN ADVISORY SERVICES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 802/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Years: 2006-07 Income Tax Officer-2(3)(2), M/S Saturn Advisory Room No. 518A, Services Pvt. Ltd., बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 44, Strategic House, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Mint Road, Fort, Mumbai-400001 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती/Assessee) Pan No.:-Aajcs2674N

Section 143(1)

Capital gains tax was not, therefore, taxable on the present case.—K.P. Vargese vs. ITO & Anr. (1981) 24 CTR (SC) 358 : (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC) : TC22R.105 followed; Shivakami Co. (P) Ltd. & Ors. vs. CIT (1973) 88 ITR 311 (Mad) : TC22R.151 affirmed on different grounds.” 2.8. Likewise, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs Navi Gera

GAURAV RAJESH DESAI ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD -3(2), MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 675/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh / AkshayFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr.DR
Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

6. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. We notice that the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the issue of condoning the delay in filing the appeal in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji and Ors. (167 ITR 471) has laid certain principles and one of the said principles is that there

GOODWILL CONSTRUCTIONS,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, , THANE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 3233/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Parwani, Sr. DR
Section 142A(1)Section 43C

142A(1) of the Act to the Valuation Officer based on the valuation report determining the Fair Market Value (FMV) of the property the AO proposed to make an addition of Rs. 24,47,250/-. The assessee submitted before the AO that the sale value has been re-determined without placing any material or evidence on record that the amount

ITO 7 (3)(4), MUMBAI vs. PUSHPAK HOMES PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1690/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपील सुं/ Ita No. 1449/Mum/2019 (यिर्ाारण बर्ा / Assessment Year 2011-12)

For Appellant: S/Shri Yogesh Thar
Section 143(3)Section 2(47)(ii)Section 50C

142A, 1st Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, / प्रत्यथााी M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400 020 अपीलाथाी की ओर े / Appellant by : S/Shri Yogesh Thar, Chaitnya D. Joshi, ARs ITA Nos. 1690 & 1449/Mum/2019 2 | P a g e प्रत्यथाी की ओर े / Respondent by : Ms Kusum Bansal, Departmental Representative ुिवाई की तारीख / Date of hearing: 26.06.2019 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date of pronouncement

PUSHPAK HOMES PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO 7 (1)(4), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1449/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपील सुं/ Ita No. 1449/Mum/2019 (यिर्ाारण बर्ा / Assessment Year 2011-12)

For Appellant: S/Shri Yogesh Thar
Section 143(3)Section 2(47)(ii)Section 50C

142A, 1st Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, / प्रत्यथााी M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400 020 अपीलाथाी की ओर े / Appellant by : S/Shri Yogesh Thar, Chaitnya D. Joshi, ARs ITA Nos. 1690 & 1449/Mum/2019 2 | P a g e प्रत्यथाी की ओर े / Respondent by : Ms Kusum Bansal, Departmental Representative ुिवाई की तारीख / Date of hearing: 26.06.2019 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date of pronouncement

ITO 14(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. SUNIL GHANSHYAMDAS VERLIANI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3813/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Ashwani Taneja, Am Income Tax Officer Shri Sunil Ghanshyamdas 14(1)(2), 2Nd Floor, Earnest Verliani House, Nariman Point, Mumbai- C/O M/S Sunil Enterprise 138, Vs. 400021. Vitthalwadi, Opp. Vithoba Mandir, Mumbai-400002. Pan No.Aabpv3351J .. Appellant Respondent Revenue By .. Shri T.A Khan, Dr .. Assessee By Shri Vimal Punmiya, Ar Date Of Hearing .. 28-11-2016 .. Date Of Pronouncement 28-11-2016 O R D E R

Section 142ASection 56(2)(vii)Section 59BSection 69B

142A of the Act on 25-09- 2012. The DVO, Mumbai furnished his valuation report dated 31-12-2012 and valued the property i.e. the cost of investment for purchase of this property at Rs.2,43,40,000/-. Accordingly, the AO relying on DVO’s record taken the real market value at Rs.2,43,40,000/- as purchase consideration