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 154clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,029Delhi911Bangalore344Chennai298Kolkata187Jaipur141Ahmedabad127Cochin92Pune76Hyderabad73Chandigarh62Raipur37Indore33Lucknow32Nagpur32Guwahati21Visakhapatnam21Calcutta21Surat20SC16Jodhpur11Agra10Cuttack6Patna6Kerala5Amritsar5Rajkot4Panaji4Rajasthan3Karnataka2Jabalpur2Telangana2Allahabad2Gauhati1Ranchi1Andhra Pradesh1Himachal Pradesh1Varanasi1ANIL R. DAVE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 1549Section 41(1)4Section 143(3)3Deduction3Section 36(1)(viia)2Section 92C2Section 143(1)(a)2Addition to Income2

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 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. APOLLO TYRES LTD

Appeal is allowed in part as indicated

ITA/44/2017HC Kerala
22 Sept 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM

For Appellant: M/S. APOLLO TYRES LTDFor Respondent: THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 35Section 43ASection 92C

capital loss had been claimed as business loss. Hence, the reliance of the assessee on the order of the ITAT for A.Y. 2002-03 in totally misplaced as the facts were totally different in A.Y.2002-03. 11.4 The investment was made by the assessee in a separate juridical corporate entity. The transaction between the two distinct, separate legal entities are subject

M/S.CARBON AND CHEMICALS (INDIA) LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, KOCHI

ITR/70/2000HC Kerala01 Mar 2021

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

For Respondent: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX
Section 143(1)(a)Section 201Section 256(1)Section 41(1)Section 41(1)(a)

154 ITR 751] and Polyflex (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [(2002) 257 ITR 343]. I.T.R. No.70/2000 -:8:- 12. A glance at the history of Section 41 will reveal the purpose behind the enactment of this provision. Section 41(1) of the 1961 Act corresponds to Section 10(2)(A) of the Income Tax Act of 1922. In the decision

TRAVANCORE SUGARS AND CHEMICALS LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

ITA/12/2008HC Kerala31 Mar 2022

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

capital leading to profits of business, which profits may be either enjoyed or put back into the business to acquire more properties for further profitable exploitation." ITA Nos.11/2008, 12/2008, 279/2010, 282/2010, 292/2010 -25- 8.4 Next decision on the point is Sultan Brothers Pvt. Ltd. The assessee, a limited company, being the plot owner, developed it into a building fitted with

TRAVANCORE SUGARS AND CHEMICALS LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMSSR;INCOME TAX,C-I,THIRUVALLA

ITA/279/2010HC Kerala31 Mar 2022

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

capital leading to profits of business, which profits may be either enjoyed or put back into the business to acquire more properties for further profitable exploitation." ITA Nos.11/2008, 12/2008, 279/2010, 282/2010, 292/2010 -25- 8.4 Next decision on the point is Sultan Brothers Pvt. Ltd. The assessee, a limited company, being the plot owner, developed it into a building fitted with