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.

4 results for “capital gains”+ Section 43Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai531Delhi290Kolkata127Chennai124Ahmedabad95Bangalore86Agra60Raipur56Jaipur41Cochin23Visakhapatnam22Hyderabad22Pune19Cuttack16Lucknow15Indore15Guwahati10Karnataka10Surat9Nagpur9Amritsar7Allahabad5SC5Jabalpur4Chandigarh4Rajkot4Panaji3Jodhpur2Calcutta2Ranchi1Telangana1Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 43B14Section 36(1)(va)8Section 234A4Section 139(1)4Addition to Income4Section 22Section 143(1)2Section 1542Deduction2Disallowance

NIKHIL MOHINE,PARASIA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), JABALPUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 38/JAB/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur18 Nov 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Capital Services Ltd. (2000) 5 SCC 515]. The legislative casus omissus cannot be supplied by judicial interpretative process. The language of s. 6(1) is plain and unambiguous. There is no scope for reading something into it, as was done in Narasimhaiah’s case (supra). In Nanjudaiah’s case (supra), the period was further stretched to have the time period

NIKHIL MOHINE,CHHINDWARA vs. DCIT, CPC, BENGULURU

2

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 37/JAB/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur18 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Capital Services Ltd. (2000) 5 SCC 515]. The legislative casus omissus cannot be supplied by judicial interpretative process. The language of s. 6(1) is plain and unambiguous. There is no scope for reading something into it, as was done in Narasimhaiah’s case (supra). In Nanjudaiah’s case (supra), the period was further stretched to have the time period

M/S RPJ MINERALS PVT. LTD ,MAIHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1,SATNA, SATNA

ITA 86/JAB/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur19 Sept 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: \nNoneFor Respondent: \nSh. Shrawan Kumar Meena, CIT DR
Section 234ASection 43B

43B would apply.\nTherefore, it was prayed that no disallowance with regard to the same was justified\nother than the sum of Rs.19,613/- on account of short payment of rural\ninfrastructure tax and VAT. However, the ld. CIT(A) held that no evidence had been\nsubmitted before him with regard to this and therefore, he directed the assessee

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 vs. M/S RPJ MINERALS PRIVATE LTD., SATNA

In the result, ITA No.154/JAB/2016 is held to be allowed for statistical\npurposes while ITA No

ITA 154/JAB/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur19 Sept 2025AY 2012-13
For Appellant: \nNoneFor Respondent: \nSh. Shrawan Kumar Meena, CIT DR
Section 234ASection 43B

43B would apply.\nTherefore, it was prayed that no disallowance with regard to the same was justified\nother than the sum of Rs.19,613/- on account of short payment of rural\ninfrastructure tax and VAT. However, the ld. CIT(A) held that no evidence had been\nsubmitted before him with regard to this and therefore, he directed the assessee