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 546clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi196Mumbai148Karnataka101Chennai87Bangalore42Jaipur33Ahmedabad21Visakhapatnam13Kolkata12Pune11Indore8Hyderabad7Chandigarh6Amritsar6Surat5Telangana5Lucknow3Dehradun3Cuttack3Jabalpur2Raipur2Rajkot2SC2Agra1Cochin1

Key Topics

Section 808Section 80I6Section 143(3)5Section 144C2Section 92C2Section 92B2Section 692Transfer Pricing2Deduction2Comparables/TP

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

546 in the final assessment order.” 4. Facts pertinent to the instant case are as under: 5. During the Assessment Year (“AY”) under consideration, KSPL was engaged in the manufacturing of personal protective equipment (“PPE") which include safety helmets, safety shoes, safety eyewear products, face shields etc. 6. During AY 2017-18, the applicant operated as a partnership firm

2

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

546 in the final assessment order.” 4. Facts pertinent to the instant case are as under: 5. During the Assessment Year (“AY”) under consideration, KSPL was engaged in the manufacturing of personal protective equipment (“PPE") which include safety helmets, safety shoes, safety eyewear products, face shields etc. 6. During AY 2017-18, the applicant operated as a partnership firm

ASSITANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , DEHRADUN vs. POWER MACHINES, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal preferred by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 133/DDN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun27 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ansaul Sachar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Mohan Lal Joshi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

section 143(3)/144C(3)(b)/254 of the Act, determining the total income of the assessee at Rs. 104,546,281/- as against the loss declared by the assessee in its income tax return. The books of accounts of the assessee were rejected by the Ld. AO at the conclusion that no revenue has been reported and only expenses