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 8Dclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai674Delhi260Chennai135Ahmedabad110Kolkata83Bangalore60Raipur45Hyderabad22Visakhapatnam20Lucknow19Jaipur17Chandigarh16Indore11Cuttack10Pune9Cochin7Guwahati5Ranchi4Rajkot4Nagpur3Surat3Amritsar2Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 2505Section 44A5Section 143(3)5Depreciation5Disallowance5Addition to Income5

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 37/GTY/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Guwahati05 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

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

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44A

8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 cannot exceed the exempt income i.e. Rs. 11,600/-. He accordingly restricted the disallowance to the extent of exempt income earned by the assessee. 46. Aggrieved, the Revenue is now in appeal before this Tribunal. Ld. D/R relied on the finding of ld. AO and ld. Counsel for the assessee supported the finding

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 38/GTY/2022[2018-19]Status: Heard
ITAT Guwahati
05 Apr 2023
AY 2018-19

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

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44A

8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 cannot exceed the exempt income i.e. Rs. 11,600/-. He accordingly restricted the disallowance to the extent of exempt income earned by the assessee. 46. Aggrieved, the Revenue is now in appeal before this Tribunal. Ld. D/R relied on the finding of ld. AO and ld. Counsel for the assessee supported the finding

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 39/GTY/2022[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Guwahati05 Apr 2023AY 2019-20

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

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44A

8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 cannot exceed the exempt income i.e. Rs. 11,600/-. He accordingly restricted the disallowance to the extent of exempt income earned by the assessee. 46. Aggrieved, the Revenue is now in appeal before this Tribunal. Ld. D/R relied on the finding of ld. AO and ld. Counsel for the assessee supported the finding

ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 43/GTY/2022[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Guwahati05 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

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

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44A

8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 cannot exceed the exempt income i.e. Rs. 11,600/-. He accordingly restricted the disallowance to the extent of exempt income earned by the assessee. 46. Aggrieved, the Revenue is now in appeal before this Tribunal. Ld. D/R relied on the finding of ld. AO and ld. Counsel for the assessee supported the finding

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 2/GTY/2023[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Guwahati05 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

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

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44A

8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 cannot exceed the exempt income i.e. Rs. 11,600/-. He accordingly restricted the disallowance to the extent of exempt income earned by the assessee. 46. Aggrieved, the Revenue is now in appeal before this Tribunal. Ld. D/R relied on the finding of ld. AO and ld. Counsel for the assessee supported the finding