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.

5 results for “capital gains”+ Section 271Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Ahmedabad9Bangalore8Mumbai5Chennai3Delhi2SC2Varanasi1Dehradun1Indore1Jaipur1Kolkata1Pune1

Key Topics

Section 271C9Section 201(1)6Section 2016Section 194A4Section 54E4Section 194H3Deduction3Penalty3TDS3Limitation/Time-bar

M/S. ICICI SECURITIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAX WARD)2(2) (2) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 1511/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Nov 2022AY 2015-16
Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 201(4)Section 204Section 49

capital gains and the TDS) made to a non-resident BNY Mellon” and “As the facts of ICICI Securities are totally different from that of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt Ltd Vs CIT, with due respect to the case law relied upon by the ICICI Securities, it is hereby held that the same is not applicable to the facts

ASST CIT 19(3), MUMBAI vs. PUSHPA SURESH HIRA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

3
Section 143(3)2
Section 1952
ITA 1561/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav, Jm & Shri Ramit Kochar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Subhash Shetty
Section 54ESection 55(2)(b)

capital gain at `77,40,704/-and after adding expenses for transfer of property at `3,38,350/-, the 'indexed cost' of acquisition of the property was taken by her as on 1.4.1981 at `34,20,946/-. Assessee invested `50,00,00/- out of the above sale proceeds in NHAI Bonds and claimed exemption under section 54EC

MRS. SONAL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS) RANGE-3, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 6462/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mrs. Sonal Shah Joint Commissioner Of 17/18, Swastik Bldg. 4Th Vs. Income Tax (Tds) Floor, N.S. Road, No. 1. Range-3, Mumbai. Jvpd Scheme, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai-400056. Pan No. Aqops1855M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mrs. Tarulata Shah Joint Commissioner Of 21/22, Swastik Bldg. Vs. Income Tax (Tds) 5Thfloor, N.S. Road, No. 1. Range-3, Mumbai. Jvpd Scheme, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai-400056. Pan No. Aadps0777K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Raveevwaglay, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 29/11/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 25/02/2019

For Appellant: Mr. RaveevWaglay, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh, DR
Section 143(3)Section 271C

capital bonds to the extent allowed and had paid the tax on the balance amount. As such, there was no revenue loss and hence penalty u/s 271C was un-called for having regard to section 273B of the Act. It is stated that the relevant documents of the sellers showing amount paid to them having been offered by them under

MRS.TARULATA SHAH,MUMBAI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS) RANGE-2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 6464/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mrs. Sonal Shah Joint Commissioner Of 17/18, Swastik Bldg. 4Th Vs. Income Tax (Tds) Floor, N.S. Road, No. 1. Range-3, Mumbai. Jvpd Scheme, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai-400056. Pan No. Aqops1855M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mrs. Tarulata Shah Joint Commissioner Of 21/22, Swastik Bldg. Vs. Income Tax (Tds) 5Thfloor, N.S. Road, No. 1. Range-3, Mumbai. Jvpd Scheme, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai-400056. Pan No. Aadps0777K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Raveevwaglay, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 29/11/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 25/02/2019

For Appellant: Mr. RaveevWaglay, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh, DR
Section 143(3)Section 271C

capital bonds to the extent allowed and had paid the tax on the balance amount. As such, there was no revenue loss and hence penalty u/s 271C was un-called for having regard to section 273B of the Act. It is stated that the relevant documents of the sellers showing amount paid to them having been offered by them under

DCIT(OSD)(TDS)-2(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. WOCKHARDT LTD., MUMBAI

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

ITA 2633/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 194ASection 194HSection 2Section 201Section 201(1)Section 222Section 271C

271C are also being initiated on the above discussed issues and necessary intimation in this regard is being sent to the Add!. Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) Range 2(3), Mumbai. 8. The assessee is directed to pay the default amount mentioned above immediately after receipt of this order. In case of further delay in payment the assessee is requested