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.

2 results for “capital gains”+ Section 144C(13)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai382Delhi295Bangalore58Hyderabad56Chennai44Kolkata14Jaipur14Ahmedabad10Pune10Indore9Dehradun7Chandigarh6Surat5Visakhapatnam5Cochin3Amritsar2Panaji1Jabalpur1Rajkot1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)4Section 69C3Section 144C(13)2Section 802Addition to Income2

SATIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUKTSAR, PUNJAB vs. DCIT, ACIT CIRCLE 1, BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 527/ASR/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar28 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 527/Asr/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: S/Shri Sudhir SehgalFor Respondent: Shri K. Mehboob Ali Khan, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 80

144C(5) for the assessment year 2021-22. i) The Authorized Representative (AR) also drew the attention of the bench to the reply submitted before the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) dated 27.07.2023. In this reply, the assessee had objected to the adjustments made by the TPO, asserting that no such adjustment was required in the prices. Furthermore, it was explained

M/S. SATIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUKTSAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 193/ASR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 144C(8)Section 250oSection 69C

144C(8) does not allow the DRP to issue directions to enhance the income of the assessee to the extent of Rs. 4,57,32,318/- which was not part of the subject matter of the variations suggested by the AO and the AO had not proposed any addition on this issue in the draft assessment order 3.2. That