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.

15 results for “capital gains”+ Section 35Dclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai120Delhi80Chennai45Ahmedabad41Raipur18Bangalore15Chandigarh14Cochin8Hyderabad8Jaipur8Kolkata7Karnataka5Pune5Visakhapatnam4Cuttack4Guwahati3Rajkot2Indore1Kerala1Punjab & Haryana1SC1Telangana1

Key Topics

Section 36(1)(viia)32Section 14A19Section 35D16Addition to Income14Disallowance12Deduction11Section 115J9Section 143(3)9Depreciation9Section 143(2)

M/S SUBEX LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. CIT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 689/BANG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jun 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Sonde, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Radhakrishna, CIT-III(DR)
Section 115JSection 263Section 35D

section 35D ought to be INR 14,223,443,668. Page 13 of 38 (2) With regard to computation of “Capital Employed”, the Assessee took a stand Share premium should also be treated as part of “issued Share capital” as per Sec.78 of the Companies Act, 1956. The Assessee also relied on a decision of the ITAT Ahmedabad Bench

M/S. BRIGADE ENTERPRISES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(3), BANGALORE

8
Section 805
Section 10A2

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 2364/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Brigade Enterprises Ltd., 26/1, 30Th Floor Wtc, The Dy. Commissioner Of Dr. Rajkumar Road, Income-Tax, Malleshwaram, Circle-2(3), Rajajinagar, Bengaluru. Vs. Bengaluru-560 100. Pan – Aaacb 7459 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri P.C Kincha, C.A Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 20-07-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-10-2021 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 30/08/2019 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-11, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2013-14 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. General Ground 1.1. The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) ["Cit(A) For Short Hereinafter"] To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. 2. Disallowance Under Section 14A R.W. Rule 8D 2.1. The Learned Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle - 2(3), Bangalore ["Ao" For Short Hereinafter] Has Erred In Making A Disallowance Of Rs. 2,02,22,837/- Under Se Tion 14A Comprising Of Disallowa,,Ø-1S. 1,73,98,969/- Under Rule 8D(2)(Ii) & Rs. 28,23,868/- Under Rule 8D(2)(Iii) & The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Said Disallowance.

For Appellant: Shri P.C Kincha, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 14ASection 35DSection 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80

capital expenditure is allowable. Page 12 of 25 5.5 We note that in the preceding four assessment years, the Ld.AO did not disallow the expenses under section 35D. As the nature of expenditure is not disputed by the Ld.AO, and that the section allows amortisation of such expenses that have been incurred towards expansion/extension of the undertaking, it could

SUBEX LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 373/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Mar 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B. Ramakotaiah & Shri Narendra Kumar Choudhury

For Appellant: Shri Raghunathan S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT-II(DR)
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 35D

Section 35D, foreign exchange fluctuations, depreciation on computer software and working out deduction u/s. 10AA as against assessee’s claims. Another issue on non-granting of foreign tax credit is also involved. Aggrieved on the DRP’s orders, assessee is in appeal and raised as many as 32 grounds. Likewise, Revenue is also aggrieved on the DRP’s directions allowing

ADDL.CI.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S CANARA BANK, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 813/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.Sarangan, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.R.Reddy, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)(viia)

35D of an amount of Rs.1,92,50,000/-. 8) The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the write off of investments of an amount of Rs.24,00,000/- 9) For all these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing the Appellant request that its appeal be allowed. ITA Nos.479 & 530/09, ……693 & 684/B/12 Page

M/S. CANARA BANK,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 479/BANG/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.Sarangan, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.R.Reddy, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)(viia)

35D of an amount of Rs.1,92,50,000/-. 8) The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the write off of investments of an amount of Rs.24,00,000/- 9) For all these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing the Appellant request that its appeal be allowed. ITA Nos.479 & 530/09, ……693 & 684/B/12 Page

CANARA BANK,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 530/BANG/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.Sarangan, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.R.Reddy, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)(viia)

35D of an amount of Rs.1,92,50,000/-. 8) The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the write off of investments of an amount of Rs.24,00,000/- 9) For all these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing the Appellant request that its appeal be allowed. ITA Nos.479 & 530/09, ……693 & 684/B/12 Page

JCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S CANARA BANK, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 601/BANG/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.Sarangan, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.R.Reddy, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)(viia)

35D of an amount of Rs.1,92,50,000/-. 8) The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the write off of investments of an amount of Rs.24,00,000/- 9) For all these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing the Appellant request that its appeal be allowed. ITA Nos.479 & 530/09, ……693 & 684/B/12 Page

JCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S CANARA BANK, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 684/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.Sarangan, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.R.Reddy, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)(viia)

35D of an amount of Rs.1,92,50,000/-. 8) The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the write off of investments of an amount of Rs.24,00,000/- 9) For all these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing the Appellant request that its appeal be allowed. ITA Nos.479 & 530/09, ……693 & 684/B/12 Page

CANARA BANK,BANGALORE vs. ADDL.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 793/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.Sarangan, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.R.Reddy, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)(viia)

35D of an amount of Rs.1,92,50,000/-. 8) The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the write off of investments of an amount of Rs.24,00,000/- 9) For all these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing the Appellant request that its appeal be allowed. ITA Nos.479 & 530/09, ……693 & 684/B/12 Page

CANARA BANK,BANGALORE vs. ADDL. C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 693/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.Sarangan, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.R.Reddy, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)(viia)

35D of an amount of Rs.1,92,50,000/-. 8) The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the write off of investments of an amount of Rs.24,00,000/- 9) For all these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing the Appellant request that its appeal be allowed. ITA Nos.479 & 530/09, ……693 & 684/B/12 Page

ADDL.CIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S CANARA BANK, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 530/BANG/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.Sarangan, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.R.Reddy, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)(viia)

35D of an amount of Rs.1,92,50,000/-. 8) The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the write off of investments of an amount of Rs.24,00,000/- 9) For all these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing the Appellant request that its appeal be allowed. ITA Nos.479 & 530/09, ……693 & 684/B/12 Page

MANIPAL HEALTH ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 2(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1031/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-15

For Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 14A

gains’. Therefore there was no expenditure incurred by the assessee. He strongly relied in the judgments of different High Courts where it is specifically stated that recording satisfaction before invoking section 14A is mandatory requirement as per law and the AO has missed the bus and there is no satisfaction recorded at all. Therefore the computation made

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU vs. MANIPAL HEALTH ENTERPRISES PVT LTD, BENGALURU

In the result, the the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1208/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-15

For Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 14A

gains’. Therefore there was no expenditure incurred by the assessee. He strongly relied in the judgments of different High Courts where it is specifically stated that recording satisfaction before invoking section 14A is mandatory requirement as per law and the AO has missed the bus and there is no satisfaction recorded at all. Therefore the computation made

MANIPAL HEALTH SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1092/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-15

For Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 14A

gains’. Therefore there was no expenditure incurred by the assessee. He strongly relied in the judgments of different High Courts where it is specifically stated that recording satisfaction before invoking section 14A is mandatory requirement as per law and the AO has missed the bus and there is no satisfaction recorded at all. Therefore the computation made

BOSCH LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

ITA 671/BANG/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Sept 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri A.K.Garodia, Accounant Member & Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr CounselFor Respondent: Shri G.R.Reddy, CIT-I
Section 154Section 92C(2)

35D of the Act if the conditions prescribed in that sec. are existing but this is not a case that share issue expenses are eligible for depreciation u/s 32 of the Act. Hence, this judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court is also not applicable in the present case. 17. The third judgment cited by him is the judgment