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.

5 results for “capital gains”+ Section 36(1)(viii)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai431Delhi390Chandigarh113Bangalore104Jaipur75Cochin71Ahmedabad70Chennai47Hyderabad45Raipur30Nagpur29Indore24Guwahati21Kolkata21Pune14Rajkot14Surat14Lucknow13Visakhapatnam12Cuttack9Dehradun5Agra5Jodhpur3Amritsar2Patna1Ranchi1

Key Topics

Section 9(1)(vii)15Section 44B12Section 808Section 143(3)7Section 80I6Section 9(1)(i)3Section 44D3Section 144C2Transfer Pricing2

HALLIBURTON OFFSHORE SERVICES INC.,NOIDA vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-1, DEHRADUN

ITA 6026/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun07 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, Sh. S. LalchandaniFor Respondent: Sh. Mithun Shete, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 44BSection 44DSection 9(1)(i)Section 9(1)(vii)

viii) Whether the CIT (A) has eared, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in holding that the amount received by the assessee on account of ‘equipment lost in hole’ is not includible in the gross revenue for the purpose of computation of profits under the presumptive provisions of section 44BB of the Act, when the said

Deduction2
Comparables/TP2

DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),CIRCLE-I, DEHRADUN vs. HALLIBURTON OFFSHORE SERVICES INC., DEHRADUN

ITA 6171/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun07 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, Sh. S. LalchandaniFor Respondent: Sh. Mithun Shete, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 44BSection 44DSection 9(1)(i)Section 9(1)(vii)

viii) Whether the CIT (A) has eared, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in holding that the amount received by the assessee on account of ‘equipment lost in hole’ is not includible in the gross revenue for the purpose of computation of profits under the presumptive provisions of section 44BB of the Act, when the said

DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),CIRCLE-I, DEHRADUN vs. HALLIBURTON OFFSHORE SERVICES INC., DEHRADUN

ITA 6714/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun07 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, Sh. S. LalchandaniFor Respondent: Sh. Mithun Shete, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 44BSection 44DSection 9(1)(i)Section 9(1)(vii)

viii) Whether the CIT (A) has eared, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in holding that the amount received by the assessee on account of ‘equipment lost in hole’ is not includible in the gross revenue for the purpose of computation of profits under the presumptive provisions of section 44BB of the Act, when the said

KARAM SAFETY PRIVATE LIMITED,SITARGANJ vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(5), UDHAM SINGH NAGAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Stay Applications are dismissed

ITA 24/DDN/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun23 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Nageshwar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Pramod Verma, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 80Section 80ISection 92BSection 92C

viii) In view the decision of this Court in Kunhayammed v State of Kerala14 (“Kunhayammed”), though the doctrine of merger does not apply when a Special Leave Petition is dismissed before the grant of leave to appeal, where an order rejecting a Special Leave Petition is a speaking order and reasons have been assigned for rejecting the petition

KARAM SAFETY PRIVATE LIMITED,UDHAM SINGH NAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(5), UDHAM SINGH NAGAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Stay Applications are dismissed

ITA 3/DDN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun23 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Nageshwar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Pramod Verma, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 80Section 80ISection 92BSection 92C

viii) In view the decision of this Court in Kunhayammed v State of Kerala14 (“Kunhayammed”), though the doctrine of merger does not apply when a Special Leave Petition is dismissed before the grant of leave to appeal, where an order rejecting a Special Leave Petition is a speaking order and reasons have been assigned for rejecting the petition