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.

9 results for “capital gains”+ Section 14Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,636Delhi904Chennai431Kolkata381Bangalore244Ahmedabad200Pune57Jaipur44Raipur43Hyderabad38Lucknow22Visakhapatnam20Indore20Chandigarh18Cuttack14Karnataka14Cochin13Amritsar11Calcutta9Orissa5Guwahati5Surat5Ranchi4Rajkot4Panaji3Nagpur3Punjab & Haryana1SC1Jabalpur1Telangana1Jodhpur1

Key Topics

Section 14A14Section 80I11Section 260A9Disallowance6Section 735Addition to Income5Section 553Business Income3Condonation of Delay3Deduction

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

3
Section 37(1)2
Limitation/Time-bar2

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KOLKATA vs. M/S. THE PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE AND INVESTMENT CO. LTD.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the substantial questions of law

ITAT/174/2021HC Calcutta12 Sept 2022

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Supratim Bhattacharya Date : 12Th September, 2022 Appearance : Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. ….For Appellant Mr. Abhijit Chatterjee, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gopal Ram Sharma, Adv. …For Respondent The Court : This Appeal By The Revenue Filed Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act, For Brevity) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22Nd July, 2020, Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, `D Virtual Court’, Kolkata (Tribunal) In Ita No. 1486/Kol/2019, For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Consideration :- A. Whether The Learned Tribunal Has Committed Substantial Error In Law In Confirming The Decision Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) In Allowing Long Term Capital Loss Of Rs. 1,09,80,30,873/- On Transfer Of Government Securities After Applying Cost Inflation Index On Sale Of Government Securities & Holding He Government Securities Are Not Bond & Debentures For The Purpose Of 3Rd Proviso To Section 48 Of The Act (4Th Proviso After Amendment) Which Is Petently Wrong & Latently Irregular ?

Section 14ASection 260ASection 37(1)Section 40Section 48Section 50

capital loss of Rs. 2,79,36,337/- against the short term gain computed on depreciable assets under Section 50 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 thereby misread and misinterpreted the said provision of law and so the direction of Tribunal is perverse ? C. Whether the Learned Tribunal has committed substantial error in law in confirming the decision

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , KOL - III, KOL vs. M/S. MEENAKSHI TEA CO. LTD

Appeal is dismissed”

ITAT/184/2014HC Calcutta08 Jun 2022

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

Section 14ASection 260ASection 73

Capital gains” and “Income from other sources” hence the explanation to Section 73 will not be applicable to the case of the appellant and accordingly the loss on trading of share cannot be termed as speculation loss”. The Tribunal confirmed such finding of the CIT (Appeals) made on facts. In the circumstances, we find no substantial question of law arises

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL - II vs. M/S RELIANCE TRADING ENTERPRISES LIMITED

In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the substantial questions of law

ITA/22/2012HC Calcutta01 Mar 2023

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 1St March, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv. ….For Appellant. Mr. Rajeev Kumar Jain, Adv. … For Respondent. The Court : This Appeal By The Revenue Filed Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Is Directed Against The Common Order Dated 28Th July, 2010, Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) In Ita No. 505/Kol/2010 Along With Co. No.42/Kol/2010 For The Assessment Year 2006-07. The Appeal Was Admitted On 19Th January, 2012 On The Following Substantial Questions Of Law : “I) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Has Erred In Law In Treating The Profit On Sale Of Investment As Capital Gain Instead Of Business Income Since The Share Transactions Were Commercial In Nature ? Ii) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Has Erred In Law In Restricting The

Section 14ASection 260A

capital gain instead of business income since the share transactions were commercial in nature ? ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in law in restricting the 2 disallowance of Rs,8,48,305/- made under Section 14A

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 9 KOLKATA vs. M/S STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA EMPLOYEES CO OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the

ITAT/62/2023HC Calcutta10 Apr 2023

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Acting Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 10Th April, 2023 Appearance : Ms. Smita Das De, Adv. …For The Appellant Mr. Saumya Kejriwal, Adv. Mr. G.S. Gupta, Adv. …For The Respondent The Court : We Have Heard Ms. Smita Das De, Learned Standing Counsel For The Appellant & Mr. Saumya Kejriwal, Learned Counsel For The Respondent. There Is A Delay Of 168 Days In Filing These Appeals.

Section 14ASection 260A

Section 14A of the said Act was not applicable on the exempt income earned by the assessee ? b) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in law to treat the transaction of sale and investment in equity and mutual funds as business income instead of capital in nature despite the settled proposition

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 9 KOLKATA vs. M/S STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA EMPLOYEES CO OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the

ITAT/63/2023HC Calcutta10 Apr 2023

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Acting Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 10Th April, 2023 Appearance : Ms. Smita Das De, Adv. …For The Appellant Mr. Saumya Kejriwal, Adv. Mr. G.S. Gupta, Adv. …For The Respondent The Court : We Have Heard Ms. Smita Das De, Learned Standing Counsel For The Appellant & Mr. Saumya Kejriwal, Learned Counsel For The Respondent. There Is A Delay Of 168 Days In Filing These Appeals.

Section 14ASection 260A

Section 14A of the said Act was not applicable on the exempt income earned by the assessee ? b) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in law to treat the transaction of sale and investment in equity and mutual funds as business income instead of capital in nature despite the settled proposition

PRINCIPAL COMM OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA 4 vs. M/S BERGER PAINTS INDIA LIMITED

In the result, the appeal fails and the same stands

ITAT/223/2017HC Calcutta02 Feb 2022

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam A N D The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : February 2, 2022. [Via Video Conference] Appearance : Mr. P.K. Bhowmik, Adv. … For The Appellant Mr. J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Ms. Nilanjana Banerjee Pal, Adv. ..For The Respondent The Court : This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Brevity) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23Rd November, 2016 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “A” Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) In Ita No. 2112/Kol/2013 For The Assessment Year 2006-07. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Consideration :

Section 14ASection 260ASection 80I

gains of industrial undertaking? iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Learned Tribunal has erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs.38,07,778/- made by the Assessing Officer under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 by disregarding that there were

PRINCIPAL COMM OF INCOME TAX , KOLKATA 4 vs. M/S BERGER PAINTS INDIA LIMITD

In the result, the appeal fails and the same stands dismissed

ITAT/256/2017HC Calcutta14 Dec 2021

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

Section 14ASection 260ASection 80I

gains of industrial undertaking? iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Learned Tribunal has erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs.38,07,778/- made by the Assessing Officer under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 by disregarding that there were

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, KOLKATA vs. M/S. SREI INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE LIMITED

Accordingly the same stands dismissed without

ITAT/147/2024HC Calcutta24 May 2024

Bench: : The Hon'Ble The Chief Justice T.S Sivagnanam -A N D- Hon'Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 24Th May, 2024. Appearance : Mr. Aryak Dutt, Adv. Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Adv. …For Appellant.

Section 14ASection 2Section 260ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 55

Capital Gain of Rs.20,00,00,000/- on account of advance received from transfer of rights to purchase “the sale shares” at a future date without considering the fact that as per the binding agreement though the transfer of shares was to compulsorily happen at a future date but receipt of the advance payment was done during the year under