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.

260 results for “capital gains”+ Section 10(34)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai3,134Delhi2,586Bangalore1,152Chennai857Kolkata635Ahmedabad609Jaipur571Hyderabad356Chandigarh355Surat336Indore291Pune288Karnataka260Cochin202Raipur151Visakhapatnam115Nagpur107Cuttack89Agra85Rajkot83Amritsar81Guwahati74Panaji67Lucknow66Calcutta61SC45Telangana40Jodhpur31Dehradun28Ranchi16Varanasi14Patna13Kerala12Allahabad11Jabalpur9Rajasthan6Orissa4A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2Andhra Pradesh2A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Punjab & Haryana1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1

Key Topics

Section 260134Deduction36Depreciation34Section 8032Section 3230Charitable Trust29Exemption28Section 1127Section 260A20Carry Forward of Losses

THE COMMR OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S DYNAMIC ENTERPRISE

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA/1414/2006HC Karnataka16 Sept 2013

Bench: This Bench.

Section 148Section 2(47)Section 45(4)

10. It is in this background we have to notice the conflicting judgments of this Court, which resulted in this reference and resolve the conflict. CONFLICTING JUDGMENTS 11. Before the Division Bench reliance was placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax and Another Vs. Gurunath Talkies reported

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S.WINTAC LTD.,

The appeal is allowed in part

ITA/910/2006HC Karnataka19 Sept 2013

B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

Showing 1–20 of 260 · Page 1 of 13

...
19
Section 143(3)18
Section 115J13
Bench:
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 260ASection 271(1)(c)

10,22,946/-. the share purchased worth Rs.1.00 crore was also sold to the RAL within few days, for Rs.1,00,000/- and suffered the short term capital loss. The purchase and sale of the shares between the close relatives and interested parties and family members, the entire transactions are colourable device. Hence, they are not entitled to claim short

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MRS SHAKUNTALA DEVI

Appeal is hereby dismissed

ITA/340/2009HC Karnataka28 Sept 2016

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

Section 147Section 148Section 260ASection 54

34,59,390/-. Assessment came to be reopened under Section 147 and in response to the notice issued under Section 148, reply came to be filed by the assessee stating thereunder that original return filed is to be treated as return filed in response to the notice issued under Section 148. Accordingly, assessment proceedings came to be framed. 3. Assessing

M/S BHORUKA ENGINEERING INDS. LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is allowed

ITA/120/2011HC Karnataka09 Apr 2013

Bench: B.MANOHAR,N.KUMAR

Section 260A

Section 10(38) of the Act and therefore he submits the order passed by the authorities are valid and legal and does not call for any interference. 12. From the material on record, it is clear the 30 acres of land in White Field belong to Bhoruka Steel Limited (BSL). It became a sick industrial company. Before BIFR, a scheme

M/S WIPRO LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

ITA/881/2008HC Karnataka25 Mar 2015

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 260

Section 145A of the Income- tax Act which was inserted with effect from assessment year 1999-2000. The said provision states that the valuation of stock should include the amount of any tax duty, cess or fee - 94 - actually paid or incurred to bring the goods to its present location and condition. The Department has followed a consistent stand

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S WIPRO LTD

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

ITA/211/2009HC Karnataka25 Mar 2015

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 260

Section 145A of the Income- tax Act which was inserted with effect from assessment year 1999-2000. The said provision states that the valuation of stock should include the amount of any tax duty, cess or fee - 94 - actually paid or incurred to bring the goods to its present location and condition. The Department has followed a consistent stand

MR.M.GEORGE JOSEPH vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOMET TAX OFFICER

In the result, order of the

ITA/238/2015HC Karnataka12 Jul 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 260Section 260ASection 54Section 54F

34,949/- under Section 54 of the Act in respect of an investment made in acquiring a new residential house property to the extent of Rs.88,98,970/-. The Assessing Officer held that 4 investment made by the assessee does not fall within purview of Section 54F of the Act and disallowed the claim and added the amount

SRI N GOVINDARAJU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal stands disposed of

ITA/504/2013HC Karnataka01 Jul 2015

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 45(2)

10 tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, or recomputed the loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S IND SING DEVELOPERS P LTD

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/541/2015HC Karnataka02 Mar 2016

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

Section 167BSection 2(31)Section 2(47)Section 260Section 3Section 4Section 67A

10 The First Party further agrees and covenants as follows: 10.1 At its own cost and expense, it shall furnish and provide all such information including documents, correspondences, statements and data as may reasonably be required by the Second Party in respect of the contract property and its development and 23 selling rights including but not limited to a General

CHITTHARANJAN A DASANNACHARYA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-V

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA/153/2014HC Karnataka23 Oct 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 2(47)Section 260Section 260ASection 54F

34 (MUM) (SB) is misconceived as the aforesaid decision was reversed by Bombay High Court in SUMIT BHATTACHARYA VS. ACIT (2020) 118 TAXMANN.COM 371 (Bom) by placing reliance on the 9 decision of the Supreme Court in Addl. CIT vs. BHARAT V. PATEL (2018) 98 TAXMANN.COM 386. It is also pointed out that at the time of grant of option

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SRI ADICHUNCHANAGIRI

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/1/2013HC Karnataka22 Feb 2016

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

Section 260

gains of business or profession". Net receipt after deducting all the necessary expenditure of the trust (sic). 10. There is a broad agreement on this proposition. But still the contention for the Revenue is that the depreciation allowance being a notional income (expenditure ?) cannot be allowed to be debited to the expenditure account of the trust. This contention appears

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S KARNATAKA REDDY JANASANGHA

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/56/2013HC Karnataka22 Feb 2016

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

Section 260

gains of business or profession". Net receipt after deducting all the necessary expenditure of the trust (sic). 10. There is a broad agreement on this proposition. But still the contention for the Revenue is that the depreciation allowance being a notional income (expenditure ?) cannot be allowed to be debited to the expenditure account of the trust. This contention appears

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GOKULA EDUCATION FOUNDATION

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/431/2013HC Karnataka22 Feb 2016

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

Section 260

gains of business or profession". Net receipt after deducting all the necessary expenditure of the trust (sic). 10. There is a broad agreement on this proposition. But still the contention for the Revenue is that the depreciation allowance being a notional income (expenditure ?) cannot be allowed to be debited to the expenditure account of the trust. This contention appears

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS vs. AL-AMEEN CHARITABLE FUND TRUST

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/62/2010HC Karnataka22 Feb 2016

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

Section 260

gains of business or profession". Net receipt after deducting all the necessary expenditure of the trust (sic). 10. There is a broad agreement on this proposition. But still the contention for the Revenue is that the depreciation allowance being a notional income (expenditure ?) cannot be allowed to be debited to the expenditure account of the trust. This contention appears

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI ADICHUNCHUNGIRI

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/233/2013HC Karnataka22 Feb 2016

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

Section 260

gains of business or profession". Net receipt after deducting all the necessary expenditure of the trust (sic). 10. There is a broad agreement on this proposition. But still the contention for the Revenue is that the depreciation allowance being a notional income (expenditure ?) cannot be allowed to be debited to the expenditure account of the trust. This contention appears

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GOKULA EDUCATION FOUNDATION (MEDICAL)

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/430/2013HC Karnataka22 Feb 2016

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

Section 260

gains of business or profession". Net receipt after deducting all the necessary expenditure of the trust (sic). 10. There is a broad agreement on this proposition. But still the contention for the Revenue is that the depreciation allowance being a notional income (expenditure ?) cannot be allowed to be debited to the expenditure account of the trust. This contention appears

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/414/2010HC Karnataka22 Feb 2016

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

Section 260

gains of business or profession". Net receipt after deducting all the necessary expenditure of the trust (sic). 10. There is a broad agreement on this proposition. But still the contention for the Revenue is that the depreciation allowance being a notional income (expenditure ?) cannot be allowed to be debited to the expenditure account of the trust. This contention appears

R JANARDHANA BABU vs. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR

Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed

WP/37528/2010HC Karnataka07 Jul 2017

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice B. Veerappa

34 119. Fathima Mujeeb, d/o Amir Ahmed, aged about 55 years, Working as pharma Assistant, Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Limited, Devanahalli Road, Off Old Madras Road, Bangalore-560049 120. Mary Dominic, d/o Dharmaraj, aged about 54 years, Working as pharma Assistant, Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Limited, Devanahalli Road, Off Old Madras Road, Bangalore-560049 121. Mercy Sheela Victor, d/o S M Ross, aged about

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI SRI ADICHUNCHUNAGIRI SHIKSHANA TRUST

In the result, all the appeals are

ITA/384/2016HC Karnataka28 Jun 2016

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 10Section 10(23)Section 11Section 12ASection 144Section 260Section 263

gains of business or profession". Net receipt after deducting all the necessary expenditure of the trust (sic). 10. There is a broad agreement on this proposition. But still the contention for the Revenue is that the depreciation allowance being a notional income (expenditure ?) cannot be allowed to be debited to the expenditure account of 9 the trust. This contention appears

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI DINESH D RANKA

The appeal is allowed

ITA/75/2009HC Karnataka11 Jun 2015

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 260

gains’. 6. The orders passed by the Assessing Officer as well as the Appellate Commissioner were carried further in appeal by the assessee before the Income Tax Appellate 9 Tribunal, Bangalore Bench in ITA No.1163/Bang/07. The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and set aside the orders passed by the Assessing Officer as well as the Appellate Commissioner