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.

14 results for “capital gains”+ Section 217(1)(c)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai353Delhi311Karnataka108Chennai82Bangalore79Jaipur74Kolkata73Hyderabad60Ahmedabad59Raipur25Pune20Indore19Panaji17Calcutta16Chandigarh15Guwahati14Lucknow10Jodhpur8SC6Patna5Surat4Telangana4Amritsar4Rajasthan4Cochin3Cuttack3Visakhapatnam1Andhra Pradesh1Dehradun1Kerala1Nagpur1Rajkot1Agra1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)23Deduction13Addition to Income13Section 80l12Section 6810Section 14710Reopening of Assessment10Section 80I4Section 92C4

GREENLAM INDUSTRIES LIMITED,TINSUKIA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-TINSUKIA, TINSUKIA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per the terms indicated above

ITA 402/GTY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati19 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 25Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 31(3)(a)

gains of business or profession”. 28. What needs to be examined whether the alleged expense has been expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the leasehold lands taken by the assessee on lease are used for carrying out business operation and the lumpsum lease money was paid

Section 803
Section 115J3
Exemption3

GREENPLY INDUSTRIES LIMITED,TINSUKIA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-TINSUKIA, TINSUKIA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 232/GTY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati21 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Manish Borad

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 80ISection 92C

217 (J&K), judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT –vs.- Ankit Metals & Power Ltd. (2019) ITA 155 of 2018 (Cal.) and in the case of CIT –vs.- Rasoi Limited (335 ITR 438 (Cal.). Further reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Special Bench decision of Mumbai Tribunal in the case

ACIT, CIRCLE - TINSUKIA , TINSUKIA vs. M/S. GREENPLY INDUSTRIES LTD., TINSUKIA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 359/GTY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati21 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Manish Borad

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 80ISection 92C

217 (J&K), judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT –vs.- Ankit Metals & Power Ltd. (2019) ITA 155 of 2018 (Cal.) and in the case of CIT –vs.- Rasoi Limited (335 ITR 438 (Cal.). Further reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Special Bench decision of Mumbai Tribunal in the case

ASSAM ROOFING LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), GUWAHATI

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 352/GTY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati21 Aug 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 80Section 801ESection 80l

capital expenditure. If the aforesaid liberal interpretation is not given, then the undertaking would not engage itself in further investments beyond the section 80IE period (i.e after 10 asst years) thereby tampering industrial growth in North Eastern States. This would bring the industrial growth in North Eastern States, through the assistance of industrial undertakings, to a grinding halt. That

M/S. SMS SMELTERS LIMITED,NAHARLAGUN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 3, GUWAHATI

Appeals are allowed in view of our foregoing detailed discussions

ITA 94/GTY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati06 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68Section 80l

1,02,50,000/- made by Assessing Officer vide following detailed discussion:- “5.1 The appellant, apart from relying upon the facts, has raised a legal contention stating that the addition of Rs.1,02,50,000/- made on account of share capital was beyond the scope and ambit of section 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961. According to the appellant

M/S. SMS SMELTERS LIMITED,NAHARLAGUN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 3, GUWAHATI

Appeals are allowed in view of our foregoing detailed discussions

ITA 95/GTY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati06 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68Section 80l

1,02,50,000/- made by Assessing Officer vide following detailed discussion:- “5.1 The appellant, apart from relying upon the facts, has raised a legal contention stating that the addition of Rs.1,02,50,000/- made on account of share capital was beyond the scope and ambit of section 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961. According to the appellant

JUD CEMENT LIMITED,SHILLONG vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CIRCLE - SHILLONG , SHILLONG

Appeals are allowed in view of our foregoing detailed discussions

ITA 39/GTY/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati06 Sept 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68Section 80l

1,02,50,000/- made by Assessing Officer vide following detailed discussion:- “5.1 The appellant, apart from relying upon the facts, has raised a legal contention stating that the addition of Rs.1,02,50,000/- made on account of share capital was beyond the scope and ambit of section 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961. According to the appellant

JUD CEMENT LIMITED,SHILLONG vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CIRCLE - SHILLONG , SHILLONG

Appeals are allowed in view of our foregoing detailed discussions

ITA 40/GTY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati06 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68Section 80l

1,02,50,000/- made by Assessing Officer vide following detailed discussion:- “5.1 The appellant, apart from relying upon the facts, has raised a legal contention stating that the addition of Rs.1,02,50,000/- made on account of share capital was beyond the scope and ambit of section 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961. According to the appellant

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 3, GUWAHATI vs. M/S. SMS SMELTERS LIMITED, NAHARLAGUN

Appeals are allowed in view of our foregoing detailed discussions

ITA 77/GTY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati06 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68Section 80l

1,02,50,000/- made by Assessing Officer vide following detailed discussion:- “5.1 The appellant, apart from relying upon the facts, has raised a legal contention stating that the addition of Rs.1,02,50,000/- made on account of share capital was beyond the scope and ambit of section 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961. According to the appellant

M/S. SMS SMELTERS LIMITED,NAHARLAGUN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 3, GUWAHATI

Appeals are allowed in view of our foregoing detailed discussions

ITA 96/GTY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati06 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68Section 80l

1,02,50,000/- made by Assessing Officer vide following detailed discussion:- “5.1 The appellant, apart from relying upon the facts, has raised a legal contention stating that the addition of Rs.1,02,50,000/- made on account of share capital was beyond the scope and ambit of section 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961. According to the appellant

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 3, GUWAHATI vs. M/S. SMS SMELTERS LIMITED, NAHARLAGUN

Appeals are allowed in view of our foregoing detailed discussions

ITA 76/GTY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati06 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68Section 80l

1,02,50,000/- made by Assessing Officer vide following detailed discussion:- “5.1 The appellant, apart from relying upon the facts, has raised a legal contention stating that the addition of Rs.1,02,50,000/- made on account of share capital was beyond the scope and ambit of section 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961. According to the appellant

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 3, GUWAHATI vs. M/S. SMS SMELTERS LIMITED, NAHARLAGUN

Appeals are allowed in view of our foregoing detailed discussions

ITA 69/GTY/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati06 Sept 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68Section 80l

1,02,50,000/- made by Assessing Officer vide following detailed discussion:- “5.1 The appellant, apart from relying upon the facts, has raised a legal contention stating that the addition of Rs.1,02,50,000/- made on account of share capital was beyond the scope and ambit of section 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961. According to the appellant

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 3, GUWAHATI vs. M/S. SMS SMELTERS LIMITED, NAHARLAGUN

Appeals are allowed in view of our foregoing detailed discussions

ITA 91/GTY/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati06 Sept 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68Section 80l

1,02,50,000/- made by Assessing Officer vide following detailed discussion:- “5.1 The appellant, apart from relying upon the facts, has raised a legal contention stating that the addition of Rs.1,02,50,000/- made on account of share capital was beyond the scope and ambit of section 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961. According to the appellant

M/S. SMS SMELTERS LIMITED,NAHARLAGUN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 3, GUWAHATI

Appeals are allowed in view of our foregoing detailed discussions

ITA 93/GTY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati06 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68Section 80l

1,02,50,000/- made by Assessing Officer vide following detailed discussion:- “5.1 The appellant, apart from relying upon the facts, has raised a legal contention stating that the addition of Rs.1,02,50,000/- made on account of share capital was beyond the scope and ambit of section 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961. According to the appellant