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.

2 results for “capital gains”+ Long Term Capital Gainsclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai4,748Delhi3,448Chennai1,570Bangalore1,357Kolkata1,227Ahmedabad710Jaipur558Hyderabad494Pune415Indore216Chandigarh198Surat197Cochin155Nagpur140Raipur115Lucknow105Visakhapatnam102Rajkot72Patna71Calcutta70Agra61Guwahati54Panaji50Ranchi44SC42Cuttack42Amritsar40Jodhpur35Karnataka31Dehradun24Jabalpur19Telangana11Allahabad11Varanasi9Kerala8Rajasthan8Punjab & Haryana6Orissa4A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2Himachal Pradesh2A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Andhra Pradesh1ANIL R. DAVE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 1544Section 143(3)4Section 542Capital Gains2Long Term Capital Gains2

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. KESHAV DUTT SHREEDHAR

ITA/11/2020HC Himachal Pradesh27 Dec 2021

Bench: Hon’Ble Ms. Justice Sabina & Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya Income Tax Appeal No. 11 Of 2020 Between:- Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Shimla. ….Appellant (By Sh. Vinay Kuthiala, Senior Advocate With Ms. Vandana Kuthiala, Advocate)

Section 143(3)Section 260Section 54

long term capital gain of Rs.38,61,259/- (on sale of flat at Delhi for a consideration of Rs.54

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S H.P. AGRO INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION LTD THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue

ITA/6/2020HC Himachal Pradesh17 Nov 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUSHIL KUKREJA

For Appellant: Ms. Vandana Kuthiala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Vishal Mohan, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 154

Long Term Capital Gains of Rs.12710334 has been set off against the b/f depreciation. The appellant has however