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.

2 results for “capital gains”+ Section 14Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,008Delhi976Kolkata490Chennai489Ahmedabad356Bangalore269Karnataka126Pune116Jaipur85Chandigarh63Agra59Hyderabad58Raipur49Visakhapatnam43Cochin41Cuttack38Indore36Lucknow22Surat18Guwahati17Rajkot16Amritsar12Panaji10Calcutta10Telangana6Ranchi5Orissa5Nagpur4Jabalpur2SC1Punjab & Haryana1Jodhpur1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)5Section 14A3Section 143(3)2Section 1152

RASHMEET SINGH MALHOTRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1,

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

ITA 226/JAB/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. K.P Dewani, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Ravi Mehrotra, JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 48

section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The same may be deleted in toto in the interest of justice. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld.CIT (A) erred and is totally unjustified in confirming the addition/disallowance of Rs.14,16,175/- from the short term capital loss on the ground

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR vs. MADHYA PRADESH POWER GENERATING CO. LTD., JABALPUR

In the result, the Revenue's appeal is dismissed as not maintainable

ITA 251/JAB/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur23 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Bardia, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Halder, DR
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 271(1)(c)

14A, inserted only by Finance Act, 2001. The borrowed capital had been invested by the assessee in shares, stated to be purchased as a matter of business policy as an investment company, which had not yielded any dividend income for the relevant year. The claim, though confirmed for disallowance by the Tribunal, had been allowed