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 “capital gains”+ Section 115Jclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai133Delhi63Kolkata36Ahmedabad14Bangalore10Jaipur10Chennai5Karnataka4Nagpur4Guwahati3Surat2Telangana2Rajkot1SC1Hyderabad1Indore1Chandigarh1Visakhapatnam1

Key Topics

Section 14A21Section 115J10Section 103Capital Gains3Disallowance3Section 54E2

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SICAL LOGISTICS LTD., CHENNAI

ITA 1695/CHNY/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri Milind Madhukar, JCIT &For Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 10Section 14A

capital assets, that 72 - - ITA 1695 to 1697 & CO 84/Mds/14 the amount received by the assessee on account of forward contract in foreign currency was a capital receipt and not exigible to tax. According to the CIT(Appeals), the same view has been held in the case of M/s. Sutlej Cotton Mills

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SICAL LOGISTICS LTD., CHENNAI

ITA 1696/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2017AY 2009-10

Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

Bench:
For Appellant: Shri Milind Madhukar, JCIT &For Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 10Section 14A

capital assets, that 72 - - ITA 1695 to 1697 & CO 84/Mds/14 the amount received by the assessee on account of forward contract in foreign currency was a capital receipt and not exigible to tax. According to the CIT(Appeals), the same view has been held in the case of M/s. Sutlej Cotton Mills

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SICAL LOGISTICS LTD., CHENNAI

ITA 1697/CHNY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri Milind Madhukar, JCIT &For Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 10Section 14A

capital assets, that 72 - - ITA 1695 to 1697 & CO 84/Mds/14 the amount received by the assessee on account of forward contract in foreign currency was a capital receipt and not exigible to tax. According to the CIT(Appeals), the same view has been held in the case of M/s. Sutlej Cotton Mills

M/S PRICOL LIMITED ,COIMBATORE vs. CIT(A) , NFAC , DELHI

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 642/CHNY/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jul 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.642/Chny/2022 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S. Pricol Limited Dcit बनाम 109, Cpm Towers, Race Course, Corporate Circle-2, / Vs. Coimbatore-641 018. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aagcp-0139-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri T.Banusekar (Ca) & Shri Suraj Nahar (Ca)-Ld.Ars " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R.Mohan Reddy (Cit)- Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24-04-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20-07-2023 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri T.Banusekar (CA) &For Respondent: Shri R.Mohan Reddy (CIT)- Ld. DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)

115J, shall be permitted so long as the Profit and loss account has been prepared in accordance with Schedule VI to the Companies Act and the same has been certified by the Statutory Auditors. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the principle upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. (3) The Learned CIT(A) failed to note that

PROCON INSTRUMENTATION PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1648/CHNY/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Nov 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Respondent: Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 148Section 54E

Section 115J. In that case, the assessee-company had sold certain land and made certain gains out of the sale. The surplus on sale of land was transferred by the assessee-company directly to its “Capital