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.

9 results for “capital gains”+ Section 80J(4)(iii)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai68Bangalore50Raipur47Delhi35Chennai20Kolkata9Ahmedabad8Guwahati8Ranchi6SC5Telangana4Varanasi3Jodhpur3Karnataka3Rajkot3Chandigarh2Indore2Jaipur1Hyderabad1Nagpur1

Key Topics

Section 80P(2)(a)15Section 80P13Section 115J12Section 143(3)6Section 40A(3)6Section 143(1)6Addition to Income5Section 684Section 1544

GUNJA SAMABAY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LTD,PURULIA vs. PCIT,, ASANSOL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 110/KOL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17 Gunja Samabay Krishi Pcit, Asansol Unnayan Samity Ltd. Vill. Gunja, Golbera, P.S. Vs. Joypur, Dist. Purulia, Pin. 723103 Pan: Aabag 2110 M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri M. Goenka, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sudipta Guha, CIT, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(2)(i)

capital gains of the assessee chargeable to tax as per provision of section 111A of the Act.” 7. Subsequently, the ld. PCIT on examination and verification of assessment record observed that the assessee had earned an amount of Rs. 39,44,212/- as interest income on deposits with Banks namely IDBI, Axis and Bandhan Bank which has been claimed

Deduction4
Disallowance3
Unexplained Cash Credit2

M/S MEDI DRIPS CARRIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-12(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 471/KOL/2014[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Mar 2017AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.471/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2008-2009) M/S Medi Drips Carries Pvt. Ltd Vs. Ito, Ward-12(4), 8Th Floor, R.No.818, P-7, Chowringhee Square, 4, Synagogue Street, Aayakar Bhawan, Kolkata-700001 Kolkata-700069 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcm 8139 Q .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ashish Rustogi, Aca Revenue By : Shri Saurav Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 01/03/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 08/03/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year 2008-09, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-Xii, Kolkata, In Appeal No.490/Xii/12(4)/10-11, Dated 11.11.2013, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 28.12.2010. 2. The Said Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Time Barred By Four Days. The Assessee Filed The Petition For Condonation Of Delay & Expressed The Reasons Of Delay. After Verification Of Petition We Found That There Was A Reasonable Cause For Four Days Delay In Filing The Appeal. Even Ld Dr Did Not Object To Condone The Delay. Therefore, We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal For Hearing. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Company Filed Its Return Of Income On 30.09.2008. Subsequently The 2 M/S Medi Drips Carries Pvt. Ltd. Assessee Company Filed Its Revised Return Of Income On 9-12-2008

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Rustogi, ACAFor Respondent: Shri Saurav Kumar, JCIT
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)

80J to carry forward only unabsorbed depreciation allowance under s. 32. It was observed that once the depreciation was allowed in the previous year, it was not open to the assessee to claim reduction with regard thereto for determining whether the total income should be quantified under s. 115J(1). 13. In view of the above decision of the Supreme

ACIT, CIRCLE-33, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, KOLKATA

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 1868/KOL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Nov 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P.M.Jagtap, Vice- & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year:1014-15

Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

capital to the appellant for grant of credit to its members, (c) maintaining the liquidity option and (d) keeping the income option alive. The Assessing Officer considered the Interest income of Rs.22070040 earned from fixed deposits and Savings Bank Account as alleged Income from Other sources and on that basis he denied the deduction u/s 80P(2)(a) in respect

SHRI RAKESH KUMAR CHAUDHARY,DURGAPUR vs. ACIT, CIR-DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

ITA 422/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 68

4) Cheque NoA09721 dt. 10.11.2008 -Rs.7,21,750.00 (Release of withheld & Guarantee commission) ---------------------- Rs.27,51,177.00 It is regretted that we could not furnish earlier the above information due to non availability of cheque references. In this connection photocopies of payment vouchers on account of payment made to M/s. R.K. Engineering Works are also enclosed herewith for necessary action

ACIT, CIR-1, DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR vs. SHRI RAKESH KUMAR CHOWDHURY, DURGAPUR

ITA 1810/KOL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 68

4) Cheque NoA09721 dt. 10.11.2008 -Rs.7,21,750.00 (Release of withheld & Guarantee commission) ---------------------- Rs.27,51,177.00 It is regretted that we could not furnish earlier the above information due to non availability of cheque references. In this connection photocopies of payment vouchers on account of payment made to M/s. R.K. Engineering Works are also enclosed herewith for necessary action

ACIT, CIRCLE - 56, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. THE WEST BENGAL STATE CO-OPT. BANK LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals as well as the cross-objections are dismissed

ITA 737/KOL/2011[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Aug 2016AY 1996-97

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.Anos.737-742/Kol/2011 Assessment Years : 1996-97 To 2001-02 A.C.I.T., Circle-56, -Vs.- The West Bengal State Co-Operative Kolkata Bank Ltd.Kolkata [Pan : Aaaat 7072 N] (Respondent) (Appellant) C.O.Nos.36-40/Kol/2011 (A/O I.T.A Nos. 737-741/Kol/2011 ) Assessment Years : 1996-97 To 2000-2001 The West Bengal State Co-Operative -Vs.- A.C.I.T., Circle-56, Bank Ltd., Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaaat 7072 N] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Department : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Cit(Dr) For The Assessee : Shri N.C.Mondal, Ca Date Of Hearing : 27.07.2016. Date Of Pronouncement : 03.08.2016. Order Per Bench

For Appellant: Shri N.C.Mondal, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)
Section 147Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

iii) Sardar Sarovar Narmada Bonds; and (iv) Kisan Vikas Patra. The Assessing Officer treated all the aforesaid investments as . "fixed capital" and held that the investments were not .available for nor-mal banking business. Therefore the entire income was taxable. The Special Bench of the Tribunal held that the Income was entitled to special deduction u/s. 80P. On appeal

NEETU AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOLKATA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1898/KOL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.1898/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Neetu Agarwal………………………………………………………….…..……Appellant Flat 6C, Block 2, Shree Ramnagar Residential Complex, Vip Road, Tegharia, W.B – 700052. [Pan: Actpa2426P] Vs. Ito, Kolkata……………..............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Puja Agarwal, A.R, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Pradip Biswas, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 30, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 18, 2024 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 11.07.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee Is A Resident Individual, Who Filed Her Return Of Income On 29.12.2021 For The Financial Year 2020-21 Relevant To Assessment Year 2021-22 Reporting A Total Income Of Rs.25,58,440/-. The Assessee Discharged Her Tax Liability By Way Of Tax Deducted At Source Amounting To Rs.2,80,028/-, Self-Assessment Tax Of Rs.22,740/- & Foreign Tax Credit (‘Ftc’) Of Rs.2,25,936/-. The Assessee Also Filed Form.67 Which Was Filed On 25.01.2022. An Intimation U/S 143(1) Of The Act Was Issued On 28.10.2022 In Which The Ftc Was Not Provided To The Assessee. This Disallowance Resulted In Tax Demand Of Rs.2,79,130/-.

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 90

iii. 42 Hertz Software India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Asst. CIT, iv. Duraiswamy Kumaraswamy vs. PCIT, W.P No.5834 of 2022 13. Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner, (1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 21) in respect of compliance with the procedural requirements have observed that: “The mere fact that it is statutory

NEETU AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD 7(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 67/KOL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Puja Agarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Abhishek Kumar, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234BSection 250Section 90

iii. 42 Hertz Software India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Asst. CIT, Ita No.29/Bang/2021 iv. Duraiswamy Kumaraswamy vs. PCIT, W.P No.5834 of 2022 13. Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner, (1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 21) in respect of compliance with the procedural requirements have observed that: “The mere fact that

ACIT, CIRCLE-33, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2203/KOL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Mar 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri.N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Sri.Waseem Ahmed Am]

For Appellant: Shri S.Bhatacharjee, FCA & Gautam BanerjeeFor Respondent: Shri S.Dasgupta, Addl.CIT Sr.DR
Section 80P(2)(a)

iii) the marketing of agricultural produce grown by its members, or (iv) the purchase of agricultural implements, seeds, livestock or other articles intended for agriculture for the purpose of supplying them to its members, or (v) the processing, without the aid of power, of the agricultural produce of its members, or (vi) the collective disposal of the labour