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.

44 results for “capital gains”+ Section 167clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai532Delhi501Bangalore294Chennai188Ahmedabad149Jaipur149Karnataka116Hyderabad112Chandigarh111Kolkata87Agra73Indore73Pune64Raipur63Visakhapatnam58Surat44Cuttack31Lucknow27Guwahati19Calcutta17Amritsar16Rajkot14Cochin13Jodhpur11Jabalpur10SC9Allahabad9Nagpur9Ranchi8Telangana6Dehradun4Panaji4Rajasthan3Patna1Andhra Pradesh1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)64Section 26360Addition to Income25Section 14821Condonation of Delay21Section 14718Limitation/Time-bar16Penalty14Section 271(1)(c)13

DIVYABEN PRAFULCHANDRA PARMAR,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3)(1), SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 73/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.73/Srt/2023 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Divyaben Prafulchand Parmar, Vs. The Ito, Ward-1(3)(1), 1-2, Harikrishna Niwas, B/H Braham Surat. Kumari Ashram, Bhatar Road, Surat – 395017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acbpp9559Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 68Section 69

section 68 of the I.T. Act. 2. Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in law and on fact to confirm assessing officer’s addition of Rs.98,037/- u/s 69 of the Act without there being any ITA No.73/SRT/2023/AY.2014-15 Divyaben Prafulchandra Parmar proof of payment of commission @ 2% of LTCG made by the assessee as per para 15 of assessment order

HILTON GROUP,SURAT vs. PCIT, (CENTRAL), SURAT

Showing 1–20 of 44 · Page 1 of 3

Section 1329
Section 245H7
Section 245D(4)7

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 58/SRT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.58 & 59/Srt/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2016-17& 2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Hilton Group, Vs. The Pcit (Central), Fp 56-57, Tp 37, Block No. Surat. 1168/B, Variyav Adajan, Surat- 394 530, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaifh9885N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah & P. M. Jagasheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 263

167/- in SRK group. The Ld. PCIT also noted that there should be capital gains due to conversion of capital assets into stock-in-trade. We note that assessee has submitted the relevant documentary evidences before the Assessing Officer in respect of unsecured loan and interest thereon and in respect of capital introduce in SRK group, which is placed

RAMESH KUMAR GORDHAN KATHIRIYA,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), SURAT

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 191/SRT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.58 & 59/Srt/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2016-17& 2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Hilton Group, Vs. The Pcit (Central), Fp 56-57, Tp 37, Block No. Surat. 1168/B, Variyav Adajan, Surat- 394 530, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaifh9885N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah & P. M. Jagasheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 263

167/- in SRK group. The Ld. PCIT also noted that there should be capital gains due to conversion of capital assets into stock-in-trade. We note that assessee has submitted the relevant documentary evidences before the Assessing Officer in respect of unsecured loan and interest thereon and in respect of capital introduce in SRK group, which is placed

ASHOKBHAI NARSHIBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), SURAT

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 62/SRT/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Jan 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.58 & 59/Srt/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2016-17& 2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Hilton Group, Vs. The Pcit (Central), Fp 56-57, Tp 37, Block No. Surat. 1168/B, Variyav Adajan, Surat- 394 530, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaifh9885N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah & P. M. Jagasheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 263

167/- in SRK group. The Ld. PCIT also noted that there should be capital gains due to conversion of capital assets into stock-in-trade. We note that assessee has submitted the relevant documentary evidences before the Assessing Officer in respect of unsecured loan and interest thereon and in respect of capital introduce in SRK group, which is placed

HILTON GROUP,SURAT vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 59/SRT/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Jan 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.58 & 59/Srt/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2016-17& 2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Hilton Group, Vs. The Pcit (Central), Fp 56-57, Tp 37, Block No. Surat. 1168/B, Variyav Adajan, Surat- 394 530, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaifh9885N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah & P. M. Jagasheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 263

167/- in SRK group. The Ld. PCIT also noted that there should be capital gains due to conversion of capital assets into stock-in-trade. We note that assessee has submitted the relevant documentary evidences before the Assessing Officer in respect of unsecured loan and interest thereon and in respect of capital introduce in SRK group, which is placed

ASHOKBHAI NARSHIBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), SURAT

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 60/SRT/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.58 & 59/Srt/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2016-17& 2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Hilton Group, Vs. The Pcit (Central), Fp 56-57, Tp 37, Block No. Surat. 1168/B, Variyav Adajan, Surat- 394 530, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaifh9885N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah & P. M. Jagasheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 263

167/- in SRK group. The Ld. PCIT also noted that there should be capital gains due to conversion of capital assets into stock-in-trade. We note that assessee has submitted the relevant documentary evidences before the Assessing Officer in respect of unsecured loan and interest thereon and in respect of capital introduce in SRK group, which is placed

ASHOKBHAI NARSHIBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), SURAT

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 61/SRT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.58 & 59/Srt/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2016-17& 2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Hilton Group, Vs. The Pcit (Central), Fp 56-57, Tp 37, Block No. Surat. 1168/B, Variyav Adajan, Surat- 394 530, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaifh9885N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah & P. M. Jagasheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 263

167/- in SRK group. The Ld. PCIT also noted that there should be capital gains due to conversion of capital assets into stock-in-trade. We note that assessee has submitted the relevant documentary evidences before the Assessing Officer in respect of unsecured loan and interest thereon and in respect of capital introduce in SRK group, which is placed

RAMESH KUMAR GORDHAN KATHIRIYA,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), SURAT

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 192/SRT/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Jan 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.58 & 59/Srt/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2016-17& 2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Hilton Group, Vs. The Pcit (Central), Fp 56-57, Tp 37, Block No. Surat. 1168/B, Variyav Adajan, Surat- 394 530, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaifh9885N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah & P. M. Jagasheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 263

167/- in SRK group. The Ld. PCIT also noted that there should be capital gains due to conversion of capital assets into stock-in-trade. We note that assessee has submitted the relevant documentary evidences before the Assessing Officer in respect of unsecured loan and interest thereon and in respect of capital introduce in SRK group, which is placed

BALUBHAI MUSTUFABHAI MAHIDA,SURAT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), SURAT

In the result, this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 580/SRT/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) Balubhai Mustufabhai Mahida, D.C.I.T., Post Valak, Valak Kamrej, Circle-2(2), Vs. Surat-394180 Surat. Pan No. Bkdpm 8643 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 254(1)Section 54Section 54BSection 55A

167, Village Valak, Tal: Kamrej 3 Balubhai Mustufabhai Mahida Vs DCIT Full value of the consideration: Rs. 45,04,560/- Less: Expenditure on transfer --- Indexed cost of acquisition --- Indexed cost of improvement --- Long term capital gain Rs. 45,04,560/- The total long term capital gain worked

MAHESHBHAI PRABHUBHAI PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1() (2),, SURAT

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

ITA 263/SRT/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 May 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble Jm & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble Am (Virtual Court Hearing) Sl.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

167 ITR 471, (1988 SC 897) (7) has observed as follows: “4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non- deliberate delay.” When we weigh these two aspects then the side

SHRI PARSOTTAMBHAI SOMABHAI PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(3),, SURAT

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

ITA 190/SRT/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 May 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble Jm & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble Am (Virtual Court Hearing) Sl.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

167 ITR 471, (1988 SC 897) (7) has observed as follows: “4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non- deliberate delay.” When we weigh these two aspects then the side

SHRI RAJESHBHAI NARSINHBHAI PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(2),, SURAT

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

ITA 187/SRT/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 May 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble Jm & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble Am (Virtual Court Hearing) Sl.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

167 ITR 471, (1988 SC 897) (7) has observed as follows: “4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non- deliberate delay.” When we weigh these two aspects then the side

SHRI GIJUBHAI PRABHUBHAI PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(1),, SURAT

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

ITA 193/SRT/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 May 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble Jm & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble Am (Virtual Court Hearing) Sl.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

167 ITR 471, (1988 SC 897) (7) has observed as follows: “4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non- deliberate delay.” When we weigh these two aspects then the side

SHRI KANTIBHAI PARSOTTAMBHAI PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(2),, SURAT

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

ITA 191/SRT/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 May 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble Jm & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble Am (Virtual Court Hearing) Sl.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

167 ITR 471, (1988 SC 897) (7) has observed as follows: “4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non- deliberate delay.” When we weigh these two aspects then the side

SHRI KISHORBHAI GIJUBHAI,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(2),, SURAT

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

ITA 189/SRT/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble Jm & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble Am (Virtual Court Hearing) Sl.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

167 ITR 471, (1988 SC 897) (7) has observed as follows: “4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non- deliberate delay.” When we weigh these two aspects then the side

SHRI DAHYABHAI SOMABHAI PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(1),, SURAT

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

ITA 186/SRT/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 May 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble Jm & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble Am (Virtual Court Hearing) Sl.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

167 ITR 471, (1988 SC 897) (7) has observed as follows: “4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non- deliberate delay.” When we weigh these two aspects then the side

SHRI GIJUBHAI PRABHUBHAI PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(1),, SURAT

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

ITA 194/SRT/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble Jm & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble Am (Virtual Court Hearing) Sl.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

167 ITR 471, (1988 SC 897) (7) has observed as follows: “4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non- deliberate delay.” When we weigh these two aspects then the side

SHRI MANOJBHAI GIJUBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(2),, SURAT

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

ITA 185/SRT/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble Jm & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble Am (Virtual Court Hearing) Sl.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

167 ITR 471, (1988 SC 897) (7) has observed as follows: “4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non- deliberate delay.” When we weigh these two aspects then the side

SMT. VALIBEN NARSHIBHAI PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(2),, SURAT

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

ITA 188/SRT/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 May 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble Jm & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble Am (Virtual Court Hearing) Sl.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

167 ITR 471, (1988 SC 897) (7) has observed as follows: “4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non- deliberate delay.” When we weigh these two aspects then the side

SHRI NATVARBHAI KANJIBHAI PATEL,HUF,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(3),, SURAT

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

ITA 184/SRT/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble Jm & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble Am (Virtual Court Hearing) Sl.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

167 ITR 471, (1988 SC 897) (7) has observed as follows: “4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non- deliberate delay.” When we weigh these two aspects then the side