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.

10 results for “capital gains”+ Section 10B(2)(iii)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai276Delhi261Bangalore232Kolkata102Ahmedabad77Hyderabad66Chennai63Pune23Jaipur21Indore12Lucknow11Cuttack11Chandigarh11Karnataka10Amritsar9Telangana7Ranchi6Surat5Guwahati5Agra4Cochin4Rajkot3Dehradun2Varanasi2Visakhapatnam1Jabalpur1Nagpur1Patna1

Key Topics

Section 26023Section 35D11Section 10A9Section 115J7Deduction7Section 260A6Section 106Section 10B4Section 802Set Off of Losses

PR.COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S JEANS KNIT PVT.LTD

In the result, we do not find any

ITA/571/2016HC Karnataka19 Oct 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 10Section 260Section 260A

capital gain earned. It is urged that since, the tribunal has failed to determine the core issue with regard to colorable devise adopted by the 15 assessee, to evade tax, therefore, the matter be remitted to the tribunal for decision afresh in accordance with law. In support of aforesaid submissions, the reliance is placed on decision of Supreme Court

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 vs. M/S JEANS KNIT PVT LTD

In the result, we do not find any

ITA/580/2016HC Karnataka19 Oct 2020
2

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 10Section 260Section 260A

capital gain earned. It is urged that since, the tribunal has failed to determine the core issue with regard to colorable devise adopted by the 15 assessee, to evade tax, therefore, the matter be remitted to the tribunal for decision afresh in accordance with law. In support of aforesaid submissions, the reliance is placed on decision of Supreme Court

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S JEANS KNIT PVT LTD

In the result, we do not find any

ITA/559/2015HC Karnataka19 Oct 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 10Section 260Section 260A

capital gain earned. It is urged that since, the tribunal has failed to determine the core issue with regard to colorable devise adopted by the 15 assessee, to evade tax, therefore, the matter be remitted to the tribunal for decision afresh in accordance with law. In support of aforesaid submissions, the reliance is placed on decision of Supreme Court

M/S KARLE INTERNATIOAL PRIVATE LTD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the order of the income tax appellate tribunal

ITA/377/2012HC Karnataka07 Sept 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 10BSection 10B(5)Section 234BSection 260Section 260ASection 70

III VS. CALCUTTA KNITWEARS’, (2014) 43 TAXMANN.COM 446 (SC) and ‘K.NAGESH VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE’, (2015) 57 TAXMANN.COM 439 (KARNATAKA). 6. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Before proceeding further, it is apposite to take note of the relevant statutory provisions namely Section 10B

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

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SASKEN

Appeals are dismissed at the stage of admission

ITA/44/2016HC Karnataka31 Oct 2018

Bench: ABHAY SHREENIWAS OKA (CJ),S.G.PANDIT

Section 10ASection 260

capital in nature. Further the Appellate Authority held that if certain expenses are to be reduced from the total turnover, deduction is to be calculated under Section 10A of the Act. The Appellate Authority also allowed set off of brought forward loss. 4. Aggrieved by the said order of the Appellate Authority, the revenue filed appeal before the Income

M/S SANKHLA POLYMERS (P) LTD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-12(2)

In the result, the appeal relating to the assessment

ITA/1100/2006HC Karnataka29 Jan 2013

Bench: D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 115JSection 148Section 260ASection 80

capital gains was concerned, it was held to be at 20%, as laid down in the judgment of this court in the case of The Commissioner of Income Tax vs M/s United Breweries Ltd [ITA No 508 of 2001, decided on 26-11-2007] and therefore submits that this analogy in respect of an exempted income of an assessee

M/S SUBEX LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, appeal is partly allowed as indicated

ITA/395/2016HC Karnataka01 Oct 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 10ASection 260Section 35D

Capital Employed’ for allowing deduction under Section 35D of the IT Act? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honourable ITAT was right in law in holding that the cost - 3 - of acquisition of companies cannot be treated as asset for allowing deduction under Section 35D of the IT Act? 3. Whether

M/S SUBEX LTD vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA/394/2016HC Karnataka01 Oct 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 10ASection 260Section 35D

Capital Employed’ for allowing deduction under Section 35D of the IT Act? 2. Whether, in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is - 3 - right in law in holding that the cost of acquisition of companies cannot be treated as asset for allowing deduction under Section 35D of the IT Act? 3. Whether, in the facts