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.

7 results for “capital gains”+ Section 80G(5)(iii)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai110Kolkata40Bangalore38Delhi25Pune23Chennai15Rajkot11Hyderabad10Ahmedabad7Lucknow5Jaipur5Agra3Indore3Nagpur3Surat3Cochin2Raipur2Dehradun1Amritsar1Jodhpur1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 14A11Section 80G11Section 143(3)7Section 117Section 80G(5)7Section 2636Section 115J4Deduction4Disallowance4Addition to Income

RABDI VIBHAG PROGRESSIVE KELAVNI MANDAL,VALSAD vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 797/AHD/2023[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jan 2024

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iv)

iii) of the Proviso to Section 80G(5) of the Act. This will be the harmonious interpretation. 11. If we agree with the interpretation of the ld.CIT(E), then say a trust which was formed in the year 2000, performed charitable activities since 2000, but did not applied for registration u/s.80G, the said trust will never be able to apply

TORRENT INVESTMENTS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS TORRENT INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED),AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR.CIT, AHMEDABAD-3, AHMEDABAD

4
Section 803
Revision u/s 2632

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

ITA 1094/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 80G

Gain returned by the assessee was short assessed to the extent of Short Term Capital Loss so set off by the assessee amounting to Rs. 1,59,36,465/-. (ii) The assessee having claimed disallowance of expenses under Section 14A of the Act amounting to Rs. 4,92,537/- which was allowed by the Assessing Officer while

SHAH RAKESH BHIKHABHAI (HUF),AHMEDABAD vs. THE PCIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 415/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri T.R Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Chavda, ARFor Respondent: Shri A P Singh, CIT. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 80G

capital gain (LTCG) on sale of shares and, accordingly. exemption under section 10(38) claimed by assessee was disallowed assessee had duly produced all primary documents in relation to LTCG earned by it before Assessing Officer and these documents reflected occurrence of transactions in normal Details of information received by Principle Rakesh Bhikhabhai(HUF) vs. PCIT Asst.Year

TORRENT PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby partly allowed

ITA 1172/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Choksi, With Shri DhrunalBhatt, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35Section 43BSection 80

5 others A.Y.2013-14 43 account of benchmarking of loan to AE. Thus, the ground of the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed. Capital Infusion. 55. The TPO found that the assessee during the year has made payment of share application money to the following AEs: S. Name of AE Amount in Rs. Date of Date of share

SHRI MANAV VIKAS FOUNDATION,CHAMARAJ, TL. VADHAVAN vs. ITO, WARD-2(EXEMP), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the asessee is allowed

ITA 723/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Feb 2026AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kakoli Uttam Ghosh, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(1)(d)Section 119(2)(b)Section 124(1)(b)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

80G of the Act, being engaged in the field of education and managing two schools for students from primary to higher secondary level. For the impugned assessment year i.e. A.Y. 2020-21, the assessee e-filed return of income on 13.02.2021, which was within the due date prescribed u/s.139(1) of the Act, declaring Nil income after claiming its entire

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA vs. GUJARAT STATE FERTILIZER & CHEMICAL LTD, VADODARA

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

ITA 538/AHD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Manish J. Shah, Shri Jimi Patel and Shri Rushin Patel, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Durga Dutt, CIT (DR) &
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144(2)Section 14ASection 35Section 80GSection 8D(2)(ii)

80G of the Act. It is submitted that it be so held now.” ITA No. 538/Ahd/2020 – Department’s appeal 3. The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal:- “1. (1) (a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs.1,78,76,443/- under section

GUJARAT STATE FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LTD.,,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE-1(1)1(), VADODARA

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

ITA 348/AHD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Manish J. Shah, Shri Jimi Patel and Shri Rushin Patel, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Durga Dutt, CIT (DR) &
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144(2)Section 14ASection 35Section 80GSection 8D(2)(ii)

80G of the Act. It is submitted that it be so held now.” ITA No. 538/Ahd/2020 – Department’s appeal 3. The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal:- “1. (1) (a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs.1,78,76,443/- under section