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.

10 results for “capital gains”+ Section 43Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai529 Delhi290 Kolkata127 Chennai124 Bangalore86 Agra59 Raipur55 Ahmedabad47 Jaipur25 Hyderabad20 Cochin18 Visakhapatnam15 Lucknow14 Indore11 Cuttack10 Karnataka10 Nagpur9 Surat7 SC5 Pune5 Allahabad5 Jabalpur4 Chandigarh4 Amritsar4 Panaji3 Calcutta2 Jodhpur2 Telangana1 Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 26028 Section 445 Section 260A4 Section 104 Disallowance2

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5 vs. M/S PNB METLIFE INDIA

ITA/128/2018HC Karnataka30 Aug 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 115BSection 260Section 44

Capital gains”, or “Income from Other Sources” or in Section 199 or in Sections 28 to 43B, the profits and gains

M/S. KARNATAKA INSTRADE CORPORATION LIMITED vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed in part

ITA/339/2009HC Karnataka09 Oct 2015

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

Section 145

Section 260

capital gain. In order to keep the cement factory in workable condition, the assessee had to incur expenditure and these expenditure are allowable. The order passed by the Tribunal runs contrary to the law 16 laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/S. M/s.Virmani Industries Pvt. Limited reported

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 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 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 PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S EXIDE LIFE INSURANCE CO LTD

In the result, both the appeals stand dismissed

ITA/118/2020HC Karnataka31 Aug 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 10Section 260Section 260ASection 44

Capital gains” or “Income from other sources”, or in section 199 or in [sections 28 to 43B], the profits and gains

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S EXIDE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD

In the result, both the appeals stand dismissed

ITA/112/2020HC Karnataka31 Aug 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 10Section 260Section 260ASection 44

Capital gains” or “Income from other sources”, or in section 199 or in [sections 28 to 43B], the profits and gains

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S AMCO POWER SYSTEMS LTD.,

ITA/765/2009HC Karnataka07 Oct 2015

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

capital asset, depreciation was allowed on the amount spent on transfer of know-how. Intangible assets, such as know-how, patent rights etc., were included for depreciation only after 01.04.1998, which was by the amendment in Section 32 of the Act. 25. In the present case, there is no dispute about the fact that know-how was acquired

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S AMCO POWER SYSTEMS LTD.,

ITA/767/2009HC Karnataka07 Oct 2015

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

capital asset, depreciation was allowed on the amount spent on transfer of know-how. Intangible assets, such as know-how, patent rights etc., were included for depreciation only after 01.04.1998, which was by the amendment in Section 32 of the Act. 25. In the present case, there is no dispute about the fact that know-how was acquired

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S AMCO POWER SYSTEMS LTD.,

ITA/769/2009HC Karnataka07 Oct 2015

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

capital asset, depreciation was allowed on the amount spent on transfer of know-how. Intangible assets, such as know-how, patent rights etc., were included for depreciation only after 01.04.1998, which was by the amendment in Section 32 of the Act. 25. In the present case, there is no dispute about the fact that know-how was acquired

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S AMCO POWER SYSTEMS LTD

ITA/1046/2008HC Karnataka07 Oct 2015

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

capital asset, depreciation was allowed on the amount spent on transfer of know-how. Intangible assets, such as know-how, patent rights etc., were included for depreciation only after 01.04.1998, which was by the amendment in Section 32 of the Act. 25. In the present case, there is no dispute about the fact that know-how was acquired