BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtAI 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.

10 results for “capital gains”+ Section 84(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,059Delhi628Chennai226Jaipur214Ahmedabad211Bangalore196Hyderabad132Kolkata129Chandigarh123Cochin82Raipur75Indore58Pune56Lucknow48Nagpur43Panaji43Rajkot40Surat38SC35Visakhapatnam34Guwahati28Amritsar20Dehradun12Ranchi10Cuttack10Patna9Agra8Jodhpur8K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1Jabalpur1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Allahabad1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)18Section 26318Section 153A15Section 32(2)12Section 2749Section 143(3)7Section 132(1)6Penalty6Section 132(4)3Capital Gains

GAJANAN FERRO PVT.LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR

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

ITA 84/RAN/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi20 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

84 to 86/Ran/2022 Gajanan Ferro P Ltd. Vs DCIT 3. That under the facts and circumstances, the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) are illegal and unsustainable in law, in view of legal interpretation and the settled judicial pronouncement by various courts and benches of tribunals. 4. That without prejudice, by no stretch of imagination could

GAJANAN FERRO PVT.LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR

3
Long Term Capital Gains3
Undisclosed Income3

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

ITA 86/RAN/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi20 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

84 to 86/Ran/2022 Gajanan Ferro P Ltd. Vs DCIT 3. That under the facts and circumstances, the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) are illegal and unsustainable in law, in view of legal interpretation and the settled judicial pronouncement by various courts and benches of tribunals. 4. That without prejudice, by no stretch of imagination could

GAJANAN FERRO PVT.LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR

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

ITA 85/RAN/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi20 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

84 to 86/Ran/2022 Gajanan Ferro P Ltd. Vs DCIT 3. That under the facts and circumstances, the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) are illegal and unsustainable in law, in view of legal interpretation and the settled judicial pronouncement by various courts and benches of tribunals. 4. That without prejudice, by no stretch of imagination could

ACIT CIR-1 , DHANBAD vs. M/S BHARAT COOKING COAL LTD , DHANBAD

ITA 300/RAN/2017[09-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Jan 2026
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32(2)

gains of\nsubsequent years without any limit whatsoever.\"\n8. In the light of the judicial precedents on the issue especially that\nof the Hon'ble Gujarat High court in the case of General Motors India\nPvt. Ltd. (supra), we find that the issue is covered in favour of the\nassessee, therefore, the ground taken by the revenue is rejected

PR. CIT (C), PATNA, PATNA vs. RAMESH KUMAR SINGH, RANCHI

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 10/RAN/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi29 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 263Section 271(1)(c)

Capital Gain on the sale of lands was duly disclosed in the case of the company M/s Van Vrindavan Construction Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter as the Company), in which the appellant was a director. The Lands were purchased and sold through its director, the appellant and the source of purchase was paid by the company and the sale consideration was received

RAMESH KUMAR SINGH,RANCHI vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), PATNA, RANCHI

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 9/RAN/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi29 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 263Section 271(1)(c)

Capital Gain on the sale of lands was duly disclosed in the case of the company M/s Van Vrindavan Construction Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter as the Company), in which the appellant was a director. The Lands were purchased and sold through its director, the appellant and the source of purchase was paid by the company and the sale consideration was received

RAMESH KUMAR SINGH,RANCHI vs. PR. CIT(C), PATNA, PATNA

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 11/RAN/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi29 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 263Section 271(1)(c)

Capital Gain on the sale of lands was duly disclosed in the case of the company M/s Van Vrindavan Construction Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter as the Company), in which the appellant was a director. The Lands were purchased and sold through its director, the appellant and the source of purchase was paid by the company and the sale consideration was received

ACIT CIRCLE-1 , DHANBAD vs. M/S BHARAT COOKING COAL LTD , DHANBAD

ITA 302/RAN/2017[11-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Jan 2026
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32(2)

gains of\nsubsequent years without any limit whatsoever.\"\n8. In the light of the judicial precedents on the issue especially that\nof the Hon'ble Gujarat High court in the case of General Motors India\nPvt. Ltd. (supra), we find that the issue is covered in favour of the\nassessee, therefore, the ground taken by the revenue is rejected

AL KABIR POLYTECNIC,JAMSHEDPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 59/RAN/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi28 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No.59/Ran/2021 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Al Kabir Polytechnic..…………..…...…………….................……...…..….. Appellant Kabir Welfare Trust, Kapali Kabir Nagar, Mango, Jamshedpur. [Pan: Aaifa3884A] Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Jamshedpur...………………..…….……….…………….. Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sharwan Kumar Jha, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Pranob Kumar Koley, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 01, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 28, 2023 Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.08.2021 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 251Section 254

84. In the said case, the words of the Circular No.549, para 5.12, dt. 31st October, 1989, providing that the assessed income under section 143(3) shall not be less than the returned income was considered by the Hon’ble High Court and it was held that as per proviso to section 119 of the Act, the Board cannot issue

M/S BHARAT COOKING COAL LTD ,DHANBAD vs. ACIT CIR-1 , DHANBAD

ITA 293/RAN/2017[11-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Jan 2026
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32(2)

gains of\nsubsequent years without any limit whatsoever.\"\n8. In the light of the judicial precedents on the issue especially that\nof the Hon'ble Gujarat High court in the case of General Motors India\nPvt. Ltd. (supra), we find that the issue is covered in favour of the\nassessee, therefore, the ground taken by the revenue is rejected