BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtAI 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.

5 results for “capital gains”+ Section 148clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,854Delhi1,465Chennai588Bangalore564Jaipur409Ahmedabad383Kolkata377Hyderabad288Pune205Indore168Chandigarh146Surat116Cochin107Nagpur99Raipur82Rajkot80Lucknow77Visakhapatnam72Panaji53Amritsar49Patna47Agra31Guwahati30Calcutta25Jodhpur23Ranchi21SC19Jabalpur17Karnataka16Cuttack15Dehradun13Allahabad8Kerala5Telangana4Rajasthan4Punjab & Haryana2Orissa2Andhra Pradesh2K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1Varanasi1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 1549Section 2(47)(v)3Section 260A2Section 53A2Section 452Section 36(1)(viia)2

A.T.SHERIFF vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed

ITA/66/2017HC Kerala29 Mar 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

For Respondent: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
Section 148Section 2(47)Section 2(47)(v)Section 260ASection 45Section 53A

148 of the Act, alleging income escaped assessment, the assessing officer held, that, an unregistered joint development agreement entered into between the assessee and another entity for development of a property belonging to the assessee, as a transfer of a capital asset I.T.Appeal No.66/17 -:3:- as defined in section 2(47)(v) of the Act and exigible to capital gains

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. DHANALAKSHMI BANK LTD., TRICHUR

ITA/485/2009HC Kerala14 Jul 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 260ASection 36(1)(viia)

capital gain, the entire TAX claim of Rs.30 lakhs, cannot be allowed in an order purported to be a rectification order on the ground that it made a mistake in the earlier order assuming wrongly that it has the power to restrict the allowance to a reasonable extent. In this way I am of opinion that such debatable issue cannot

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. PTL ENTERPRISES LIMITED,

ITA/483/2009HC Kerala19 Jul 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

For Appellant: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXFor Respondent: M/S.PREMIER TYRES LTD

capital, moved an application under Sec.15 of the Sick Industries (Special ITA Nos.757/2009 and batch cases 13 Provisions) Act 1985 (for short 'Act 1985') before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) for framing scheme under Act 1985. The application moved by the assessee was registered as Case No.023/91 (39/87). For disposal of appeals it is sufficient to note

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PREMIER TYRES LTD.

ITA/758/2009HC Kerala19 Jul 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

For Appellant: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXFor Respondent: M/S.PREMIER TYRES LTD

capital, moved an application under Sec.15 of the Sick Industries (Special ITA Nos.757/2009 and batch cases 13 Provisions) Act 1985 (for short 'Act 1985') before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) for framing scheme under Act 1985. The application moved by the assessee was registered as Case No.023/91 (39/87). For disposal of appeals it is sufficient to note

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PREMIER TYRES LTD.

ITA/929/2009HC Kerala19 Jul 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

For Appellant: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXFor Respondent: M/S.PREMIER TYRES LTD

capital, moved an application under Sec.15 of the Sick Industries (Special ITA Nos.757/2009 and batch cases 13 Provisions) Act 1985 (for short 'Act 1985') before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) for framing scheme under Act 1985. The application moved by the assessee was registered as Case No.023/91 (39/87). For disposal of appeals it is sufficient to note