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.

3 results for “capital gains”+ Section 40A(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai442Delhi402Bangalore130Ahmedabad110Kolkata100Chennai96Jaipur79Hyderabad70Raipur39Pune38Chandigarh37Cochin33Indore30Visakhapatnam28Cuttack12Surat12Lucknow10Rajkot8Dehradun8Amritsar8Karnataka6SC5Guwahati4Patna3Calcutta3Jodhpur2Jabalpur1Allahabad1Agra1Nagpur1

Key Topics

Section 260A4Section 143(3)4Section 80H4Section 403Disallowance3Section 1952Section 115J2Section 14A2Capital Gains2Deduction

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

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

2. The assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of various industrial and mechanical gases, cryogenic and non-cryogenic plants and vessels. A show cause notice was issued to the assessee alleging that tax was not deducted at source in terms of the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act in respect

2

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

C.I.T CENTRAL I vs. J. K. INDUSTRIES LTD.

ITA/268/2005HC Calcutta07 Feb 2023

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam

Section 115JSection 260ASection 40A(9)Section 80H

40A(9) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and in that view deleting the disallowance of Rs.17,05,646/- ? 2 ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case ITAT erred in law in upholding CIT(A)’s decision in directing the AO to deduct the amount of Rs.20,45,07,768/- from the net profit to arrive