Search: capital gains | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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 43Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai176 Delhi131 Chennai83 Bangalore52 Kolkata42 Ahmedabad38 Hyderabad15 SC9 Indore8 Cochin8 Surat8 Karnataka4 Visakhapatnam3 Pune3 Raipur2 Telangana2 Kerala2 Cuttack1 Jabalpur1 Amritsar1 Jaipur1

Key Topics

Section 2604 Section 115J4 Section 260A3 Section 35D3 Section 1432 Section 2632 Deduction2 Disallowance2 Addition to Income2

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S SUBEX LTD

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

ITA/684/2015HC Karnataka01 Oct 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 143Section 2Section 260Section 260ASection 263Section 35D

gain to tax accordingly. The arguments of the learned counsel for the assessee that the loss was not created because it was capital under Section 43A

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S BANGALORE INTERNATIONAL

Appeal is dismissed; and

ITA/329/2017HC Karnataka19 Sept 2022

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Section 115JSection 260

Section 43A with effect from 01.04.2003 and upheld CIT(A)'s order that the gain arising on 3 (312 ITR 254) Para 30 to 34 - 6 - ITA No. 329 of 2017 account of exchange fluctuation are not liable to tax as it is on the capital

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S UNITED SPIRITS LTD

ITA/548/2015HC Karnataka02 Sept 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 143Section 260Section 260A

capital requirements as was not related as otherwise noted by the Assessing Officer claimed as interest on forward contracts for - 15 - investment in shares of companies which investment increased from Rs.102 crores to Rs.380 crores. Justifiably the learned counsel pointed out the issue in accordance with the provisions of section 43A distinguishing the capital/revenue nature imbibed therein to result

SATISH N vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/30917/2016HC Karnataka10 Nov 2016

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Raghvendra S. Chauhan

Section 93 of the Act, namely "a canvasser…solicits the customer for such vehicle (public service vehicle) ”. Therefore, an aggregator is covered under Section 93 of the Act. 53. Of course, Mr. Sajan Poovayya, the learned Senior counsel, has argued that an aggregator does not go on to the road to solicit customers. But in the Digital Age, the internet