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.

88 results for “capital gains”+ Section 40A(2)(b)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai412Delhi353Bangalore129Ahmedabad106Kolkata88Chennai85Jaipur75Hyderabad69Pune38Chandigarh37Raipur37Cochin29Indore28Visakhapatnam27Surat11Cuttack10Lucknow10Rajkot8Amritsar7Karnataka6SC5Guwahati4Patna3Calcutta2Jabalpur1Allahabad1Dehradun1Agra1Jodhpur1Nagpur1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)75Addition to Income59Section 26339Disallowance39Deduction34Section 14A31Section 115J29Section 4023Section 40A(3)15Section 143(2)

M/S. EVEREADY INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT-4, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 805/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

gain of Rs. 33.82L). Thus, even if TDS was deducted on entire other income, there was a short credit income. The same was not properly verified by the A.O. (b) One of the reasons for selection of scrutiny was mismatch in amount paid to related persons u/s 40A (2) (b) reported in Audit report (Form 3CEB) and ITR. However

MEGA ENGINEERS & BUILDERS,PORT BLAIR vs. DCIT, CIR. 3(2) , PORT BLAIR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 312/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: Disposed

Showing 1–20 of 88 · Page 1 of 5

14
Section 25012
Set Off of Losses12
ITAT Kolkata
09 Oct 2024
AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 194C

B & R). During the assessee filed return of income declaring total income of Rs. 22,46,110/- on 03.11.2017. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS and statutory notices were duly issued and served to the assessee. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the gross receipt of assessee were

ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA vs. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LTD., KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

ITA 377/KOL/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80I

40A(7) of IT Act unless the gratuity fund is approved. It is an admitted fact that the grauit9y fund of appellant is not approved and therefore appellant cannot claimed in respect of contribution to this fund. A proper contribution can be made only after the approval.” Further, aggrieved by this order of Ld. CIT(A) assessee has come

DCIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LIMITED, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

ITA 482/KOL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80I

40A(7) of IT Act unless the gratuity fund is approved. It is an admitted fact that the grauit9y fund of appellant is not approved and therefore appellant cannot claimed in respect of contribution to this fund. A proper contribution can be made only after the approval.” Further, aggrieved by this order of Ld. CIT(A) assessee has come

ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA vs. HUTCHISON TELECOM EAST LIMITED, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

ITA 343/KOL/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80I

40A(7) of IT Act unless the gratuity fund is approved. It is an admitted fact that the grauit9y fund of appellant is not approved and therefore appellant cannot claimed in respect of contribution to this fund. A proper contribution can be made only after the approval.” Further, aggrieved by this order of Ld. CIT(A) assessee has come

M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

ITA 485/KOL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80I

40A(7) of IT Act unless the gratuity fund is approved. It is an admitted fact that the grauit9y fund of appellant is not approved and therefore appellant cannot claimed in respect of contribution to this fund. A proper contribution can be made only after the approval.” Further, aggrieved by this order of Ld. CIT(A) assessee has come

M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LTD.,KOLKATA vs. JCIT, RANGE - 7, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

ITA 356/KOL/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80I

40A(7) of IT Act unless the gratuity fund is approved. It is an admitted fact that the grauit9y fund of appellant is not approved and therefore appellant cannot claimed in respect of contribution to this fund. A proper contribution can be made only after the approval.” Further, aggrieved by this order of Ld. CIT(A) assessee has come

M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE - 7, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

ITA 357/KOL/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80I

40A(7) of IT Act unless the gratuity fund is approved. It is an admitted fact that the grauit9y fund of appellant is not approved and therefore appellant cannot claimed in respect of contribution to this fund. A proper contribution can be made only after the approval.” Further, aggrieved by this order of Ld. CIT(A) assessee has come

M/S VODAFONE EAST LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LIMITED),KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

ITA 431/KOL/2012[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2017AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80I

40A(7) of IT Act unless the gratuity fund is approved. It is an admitted fact that the grauit9y fund of appellant is not approved and therefore appellant cannot claimed in respect of contribution to this fund. A proper contribution can be made only after the approval.” Further, aggrieved by this order of Ld. CIT(A) assessee has come

M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

ITA 673/KOL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80I

40A(7) of IT Act unless the gratuity fund is approved. It is an admitted fact that the grauit9y fund of appellant is not approved and therefore appellant cannot claimed in respect of contribution to this fund. A proper contribution can be made only after the approval.” Further, aggrieved by this order of Ld. CIT(A) assessee has come

DCIT, CIR-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. LUCKY GOLD STAR COMPANY LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1382/KOL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Apr 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37

gains of business or profession”. 40 (2)(a) Where the assessee incurs any expenditure in respect of which payment has been or is to be made to any person41 referred to in clause (b) of this sub-section, and the 42 [Assessing] Officer is of opinion that such expenditure is excessive or unreasonable having regard to the fair market value

DCIT, CIR-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. LUCKY GOLD STAR COMPANY LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1381/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37

gains of business or profession”. 40 (2)(a) Where the assessee incurs any expenditure in respect of which payment has been or is to be made to any person41 referred to in clause (b) of this sub-section, and the 42 [Assessing] Officer is of opinion that such expenditure is excessive or unreasonable having regard to the fair market value

RAIPUR STEEL CASTING INDIA (P)) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT-5, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees (In ITA No

ITA 895/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jun 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A.T, Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am M/S. Raipur Steel Casting India (P) Ltd. Vs. P.C.I.T.,-5, Kolkata Pan: Aaacg 8490M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Shankar, CIT, ld.DR
Section 263Section 92BSection 92C

40A(2)(b) are to be excluded from the scope of section 92BA of the Act. The whole object of the omission of clause (i) of section 92BA is to reduce the compliance burden of taxpayers. As we noticed that clause (i) of section 92BA has been ‘omitted” with effect from 01.04.2017. The effect of such omission without any saving

M/S SRINATH JI FURNISHING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT-5, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees (In ITA No

ITA 1035/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jun 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A.T, Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am M/S. Raipur Steel Casting India (P) Ltd. Vs. P.C.I.T.,-5, Kolkata Pan: Aaacg 8490M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Shankar, CIT, ld.DR
Section 263Section 92BSection 92C

40A(2)(b) are to be excluded from the scope of section 92BA of the Act. The whole object of the omission of clause (i) of section 92BA is to reduce the compliance burden of taxpayers. As we noticed that clause (i) of section 92BA has been ‘omitted” with effect from 01.04.2017. The effect of such omission without any saving

M/S DIVAKAR SOLAR SYSTEM LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1301/KOL/2015[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2016AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)

40A(2) / 37 of the Act. Accordingly, the Grounds 3(a) to 3(f) raised by the assessee are allowed. 12 Divakar Solar System Ltd., AY 2012-13 5. The last issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld CIT(A) is justified in upholding the disallowance of interest paid on borrowed funds

THE PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE & INVESTMENT CO. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 938/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Singh, CIT, ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37(1)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 48

40A(2)(a) & (b), to prove the excess so paid by the assessee to such company. The payment was made in respect of vacation of the property so occupied by such company. We find substance in the ld Counsel`s argument that the payment was made by the assessee after much negotiation and it was a separate entity and correspondences

THE PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE & INVESTMENT CO. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 937/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Singh, CIT, ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37(1)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 48

40A(2)(a) & (b), to prove the excess so paid by the assessee to such company. The payment was made in respect of vacation of the property so occupied by such company. We find substance in the ld Counsel`s argument that the payment was made by the assessee after much negotiation and it was a separate entity and correspondences

M/S MRINALINI BIRI MANUFACTURING CO.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-8(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 85/KOL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Sept 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.85/Kol/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Dhrubajyoti Roy, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(v)Section 37(1)Section 40

capital employed in the business. Provisions are usually shown in the balance sheet by way of deductions from the assets in respect of which they are made whereas general reserves and reserve funds are shown as part of the proprietor's interest - see Spicer and Pegler's Book-keeping and Accounts, 15th

ITO, WD-33(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SPML - HCIL JV, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 634/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jan 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri P.M.Jagtap & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:2009-10

Section 143(2)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 80

40A(2)(b) of the Act. 4. Before CIT(A) assessee filed written submission with supporting documents, wherein he questioned the addition stating that all the money received by SPML is only reimbursement by assessee to SPML who on its own executed the whole project since the withdrawal of HCIL, as such the assessee did not engage itself from such

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6,, KOLKATA vs. LOKNATH SARAF SECURITIES LTD.,, KOLKATA

In the result, to sum up ITA No

ITA 852/KOL/2008[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jul 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 43(5)Section 73

b) where an allowance has to be made under clause (ii) in respect of amounts carried forward from more than one assessment year, the amount carried forward from an earlier assessment year shall be allowed before any amount carried forward from a later assessment year. It was held in the case Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Circle