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.

4 results for “capital gains”+ Section 10A(7)clear

Sorted by relevance

Bangalore277Mumbai222Delhi198Chennai62Kolkata57Ahmedabad47Hyderabad32Pune31Jaipur21Karnataka16Calcutta16Amritsar9Lucknow8Indore8Telangana7Rajkot6Surat6Chandigarh4Guwahati4Agra3Visakhapatnam2Varanasi2SC2Rajasthan2Cuttack2Cochin2Jodhpur1Dehradun1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Nagpur1Panaji1Patna1Ranchi1

Key Topics

Section 80I20Section 143(2)6Deduction4Section 2502Section 2532Section 142(1)2Disallowance2

M/S ASHA TECHNOLOGIES,SIRMOUR vs. ADDL. CIT, SOLAN

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed as aforesaid in respect of impugned orders dt

ITA 388/CHANDI/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jul 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate with Shri Aditya Sood, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sarabjeet Singh, CIT, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 253Section 80I

capital account and Rs. 11,00,000/- in the name of M/s. Asha Telecom Pvt. Ltd. as liabilities. But it did not furnish any information regarding sources of these credits and neither any confirmation from M/s. Asha Telecom Pvt. Ltd. was furnished. Similarly, Para 8 of the questionnaire remained unanswered. Vide Para 9 of its reply, it was stated that

M/S ASHA TECHNOLOGIES,KALA AMB vs. ITO, SIRMOUR

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed as aforesaid in respect of impugned orders dt

ITA 61/CHANDI/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate with Shri Aditya Sood, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sarabjeet Singh, CIT, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 253Section 80I

capital account and Rs. 11,00,000/- in the name of M/s. Asha Telecom Pvt. Ltd. as liabilities. But it did not furnish any information regarding sources of these credits and neither any confirmation from M/s. Asha Telecom Pvt. Ltd. was furnished. Similarly, Para 8 of the questionnaire remained unanswered. Vide Para 9 of its reply, it was stated that

M/S INNOVA CAPTAB,BADDI vs. DCIT, PARWANOO

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are

ITA 734/CHANDI/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 May 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta & Innova Captab, Vs. The D.C.I.T., Plot No.81B, Epip, Circle Parwanoo. Phase 1, Jhamajri Pan: Aaffv6014N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gulshan Raj, CIT DR
Section 80I

7. During the course of hearing before us, the Ld.Counsel for the assessee pointed out that the decision of the I.T.A.T. in the case of Hycron Electronics (supra), following which the assessee’s claim of deduction u/s 80IC had been restricted to 25% of the eligible profits, had been reversed by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in a bunch

INNOVA CAPTAB,BADDI vs. DCIT, PARWANOO

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are

ITA 1184/CHANDI/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 May 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta & Innova Captab, Vs. The D.C.I.T., Plot No.81B, Epip, Circle Parwanoo. Phase 1, Jhamajri Pan: Aaffv6014N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gulshan Raj, CIT DR
Section 80I

7. During the course of hearing before us, the Ld.Counsel for the assessee pointed out that the decision of the I.T.A.T. in the case of Hycron Electronics (supra), following which the assessee’s claim of deduction u/s 80IC had been restricted to 25% of the eligible profits, had been reversed by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in a bunch