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.

5 results for “TDS”+ Capital Gainsclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,384Delhi1,095Bangalore674Chennai547Kolkata286Ahmedabad164Chandigarh124Jaipur120Hyderabad107Raipur73Cochin70Pune61Indore50Surat48Visakhapatnam34Lucknow28Cuttack26Karnataka25Rajkot18Nagpur17Dehradun14Telangana13Amritsar12Agra9Guwahati9Patna8Panaji8Kerala7SC6Calcutta5Jodhpur5Jabalpur4Ranchi4Varanasi3Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)6Section 260A6Section 403Addition to Income3Section 1452Section 1952Section 14A2Section 94(7)2TDS2Capital Gains

JET AGE SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-III

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

ITA/79/2010HC Calcutta15 Sept 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA

Section 260ASection 94(7)

capital gains which was little more than Rs. 13,00,000/- in the assessment year 2004-2005 had risen up to Rs. 2.52 crores in the assessment year under consideration. In order to verify the correctness of the said conclusion, we have perused the schedule annexed to and forming part of the accounts for the year ended 31.03.2005. Schedule

PRINCIPAL COMM OF INCOME TAX -4, KOLKATA vs. M/S LINDE INDIA LIMITED

ITAT/338/2016HC Calcutta05 Sept 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

2
Long Term Capital Gains2
Disallowance2
For Respondent: Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 195Section 260ASection 40Section 5Section 50CSection 9

gains by adopting Rs. 861 per square feet being guideline value in the same manner in which the learned DVO had carried out the valuation. 9. Being aggrieved against the order dated March 30, 2011 passed by the Tribunal as aforesaid, the Revenue preferred this appeal under Section 260A of the Act. 10. The revenue suggested the following substantial questions

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATA vs. M/S ITC LTD

ITAT/89/2025HC Calcutta21 Jul 2025

Bench: The Learned Tribunal – One By The Assessee & The Other By The Revenue Which Have Been Disposed Of By A Common Order, Impugned In This Appeal. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Consideration :

For Appellant: Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. J.P. Khaitan, Senior Advocate
Section 14ASection 260ASection 37(1)Section 40a

gain resulting on other receivable/payables treating the same to be notional in nature? (d) Whether the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.1,49,54,059/- by holding that the same being liquidated damages received from the suppliers on account of delayed installation of machineries and delayed construction of 3 building was a capital

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA XIX, KOLKATA vs. M/S SANDERSON AND MORGANS

ITA/155/2011HC Calcutta07 Feb 2024

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani & The Hon’Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj Date : 7Th February, 2024 Appearance: Mr. Vipul Kundalia, Adv. Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. ...For The Appellant. Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ananda Sen, Adv. Ms. Swapna Das, Adv. Mr. Asit Kumar De, Adv. ...For The Respondent. 1. Heard Sri Vipul Kundalia, Learned Senior Standing Counsel Along With Sri Soumen Bhattacharjee, Learned Junior Standing Counsel For The Appellant/Department & Sri J. P. Khaitan, Learned Senior Counsel Assisted By Sri Ananda Sen, Smt. Swapna Das & Sri Asit Kumar De, Learned Advocates For The Respondent/Assessee.

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 260A

TDS can not be treated as income because the job is to be performed and bills are raised and income is recognized. Further it’s not the AO’s case that the expenses were not actually laid out or they were not laid out for the purpose of the Appellant’s business. It is also not the AO’s case

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL II, KOLKATA vs. HALDIRAM BHUJIWALA LIMITED

ITAT/155/2011HC Calcutta06 Jun 2022

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani & The Hon’Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj Date : 7Th February, 2024 Appearance: Mr. Vipul Kundalia, Adv. Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. ...For The Appellant. Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ananda Sen, Adv. Ms. Swapna Das, Adv. Mr. Asit Kumar De, Adv. ...For The Respondent. 1. Heard Sri Vipul Kundalia, Learned Senior Standing Counsel Along With Sri Soumen Bhattacharjee, Learned Junior Standing Counsel For The Appellant/Department & Sri J. P. Khaitan, Learned Senior Counsel Assisted By Sri Ananda Sen, Smt. Swapna Das & Sri Asit Kumar De, Learned Advocates For The Respondent/Assessee.

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 260A

TDS can not be treated as income because the job is to be performed and bills are raised and income is recognized. Further it’s not the AO’s case that the expenses were not actually laid out or they were not laid out for the purpose of the Appellant’s business. It is also not the AO’s case