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.

3 results for “capital gains”+ Section 36(1)(va)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai142Ahmedabad89Delhi88Agra59Chandigarh58Chennai53Jaipur39Kolkata37Raipur23Bangalore20Indore14Cochin11Hyderabad10Lucknow7Surat6Pune5Jodhpur5Cuttack4Guwahati3Karnataka3Amritsar3SC3Nagpur2Jabalpur2Allahabad2Rajkot2Punjab & Haryana1Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 26011Section 36(1)(viia)3Section 14A3Section 41(1)2Section 143(3)2

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

36. The Apex Court had an occasion to go into the validity of the agreements entered into under these provisions and their enforceability in the case of UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER VS. AZADI BACHAO ANDOLAN AND ANOTHER reported in 263 ITR 706. Dealing with the purpose of provisions for avoidance of double taxation, the Supreme Court at page

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

36. The Apex Court had an occasion to go into the validity of the agreements entered into under these provisions and their enforceability in the case of UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER VS. AZADI BACHAO ANDOLAN AND ANOTHER reported in 263 ITR 706. Dealing with the purpose of provisions for avoidance of double taxation, the Supreme Court at page

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. STATE BANK OF MYSORE

In the result, the order passed by the tribunal

ITA/355/2013HC Karnataka15 Oct 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(24)(x)Section 260Section 260ASection 263Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 41(1)

va) of the Act? (iii) Whether the Appellate Authorities were correct in holding that the Assessing Officer has not discharged his burden of proving that the entire income under investment is from the investments made by utilizing borrowed funds, when 80% of the funds employed in the business are borrowed funds and recorded a perverse finding? 4 (iv) Whether