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.

1 result for “capital gains”+ Section 163clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai205Chennai148Delhi134Jaipur62Bangalore59Chandigarh54Hyderabad46Nagpur32Raipur32Kolkata17Ahmedabad16Lucknow15Indore15Surat12Visakhapatnam7Pune7Varanasi6Dehradun6Guwahati5Patna5Agra5Allahabad4Amritsar4Rajkot4Ranchi4Cochin3Panaji2Jodhpur2Cuttack1

Key Topics

Section 14A8Section 143(3)2Section 120(4)(b)2

M/S. ALTRADE MINERALS PVT. LIMITED,ROURKELA vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 65/CTK/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Altrade Minerals Pvt /S. Altrade Minerals Pvt Vs. Asst. Asst. Commissioner Commissioner Of Of Ltd., C/O. Kadmawala & Co., C/O. Kadmawala & Co., Income Tax, Central Circle, Income Tax, Central Circle, C.A., C.A., Budhram Budhram Oram Oram Sambalpur Market, Market, Kachery Kachery Road, Road, Rourkela. Pan/Gir No. No.Aafca 7136 F (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.R.Sahu, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 16/12/20 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 16/12/20 024

For Appellant: Shri M.R.Sahu, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr DR
Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

163 (SC) held as under: P a g e 20 | 63 ITA No.65/CTK /2023 Assessment Year : 2011-12 "The mandate of section 148(1) of the Act is that reassessment shall not be made until there has been a service of notice which is a condition precedent to making an order of assessment. The Supreme Court further held that