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.

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

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai412Delhi353Bangalore129Ahmedabad106Kolkata88Chennai85Jaipur75Hyderabad69Pune38Chandigarh37Raipur37Cochin29Indore28Visakhapatnam27Surat11Cuttack10Lucknow10Rajkot8Amritsar7Karnataka6SC5Guwahati4Patna3Calcutta2Jabalpur1Allahabad1Dehradun1Agra1Jodhpur1Nagpur1

Key Topics

Disallowance61Addition to Income61Section 143(3)49Section 14A47Deduction35Section 115J33Section 153A28Section 6823Section 14823Depreciation

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MUMBAI vs. QUANTUM ADVISORS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 2438/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit-1(3)(1), M/S Quantum Advisors Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 535, 5Th Floor, 503, Regent Chambers, Nariman Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Point, Mumbai-400021. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacq 0281 C Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Niraj SethFor Respondent: Mr. Rajendra Chandekar, DR

section 40A(2)(b)(iv) of the Act also d 40A(2)(b)(iv) of the Act also does not apply because same applies oes not apply because same applies where payment is made by the where payment is made by the subsiding company to company to holding company but in the case in hand transaction is vice-versa. company

M/S SANOFI INDIA LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS AVENTIS PHARMA LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT RG 8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Showing 1–20 of 412 · Page 1 of 21

...
23
Section 80I18
Transfer Pricing18
ITA 1606/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: Disposed
ITAT Mumbai
31 Oct 2023
AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 271(1)(c)

b) of Section 40A(2) of the Act is also not attracted in the present case.” 8. Taking note of the said observations, we find that in the present case, the learned Tribunal has found in the impugned order dated 18.02.2009 for the Assessment Years 2003-2004 that there is no evidence brought on record to show that the payment

ACIT- 3(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. MM/S SANOFI INDIA LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS AVENTIS PHARMA LTD)., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1302/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 271(1)(c)

b) of Section 40A(2) of the Act is also not attracted in the present case.” 8. Taking note of the said observations, we find that in the present case, the learned Tribunal has found in the impugned order dated 18.02.2009 for the Assessment Years 2003-2004 that there is no evidence brought on record to show that the payment

ASST CIT 19(3), MUMBAI vs. PAHILAJRAI JAIKISHIN, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1562/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1562/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

Section 14Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37(1)Section 40

capital borrowed within the meaning of this clause. 40. Amounts not deductible.—Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in sections 30 to 38, the following amounts shall not be deducted in computing & ITA No. 994/Mum/2014 the income chargeable under the head ‘Profits and gains of business or profession’,— (a)****** (b)in the case of any firm, any payment of interest, salary

PAHILAJRAI JAIKISHAN,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 19(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 994/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1562/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

Section 14Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37(1)Section 40

capital borrowed within the meaning of this clause. 40. Amounts not deductible.—Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in sections 30 to 38, the following amounts shall not be deducted in computing & ITA No. 994/Mum/2014 the income chargeable under the head ‘Profits and gains of business or profession’,— (a)****** (b)in the case of any firm, any payment of interest, salary

SANOFI INDIA LTD FORMERLY KNOWN AS AVENTIS PHARMA LTD ,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the C.O. of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is partly allowed

ITA 6626/MUM/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra (CIT-DR) &
Section 32Section 32(1)

capital of the subsidiary company (except in cases where it controls the composition of the board of directors without holding majority of the shares). While the holding company is a member of its subsidiary company, the subsidiary company is not a member of the holding company. As, the subsidiary company was not a member of the assessee subclause

ADDL CIT 8(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. SANOFI INDIA LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S. AVENTIS PHARMA LTD), MUMBAI

In the result, the C.O. of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is partly allowed

ITA 6698/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra (CIT-DR) &
Section 32Section 32(1)

capital of the subsidiary company (except in cases where it controls the composition of the board of directors without holding majority of the shares). While the holding company is a member of its subsidiary company, the subsidiary company is not a member of the holding company. As, the subsidiary company was not a member of the assessee subclause

ADDL CIT RG 8(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. SANOFI INDIA LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S. AVENTIS PHARMA LTD), MUMBAI

In the result, the C.O. of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is partly allowed

ITA 7712/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra (CIT-DR) &
Section 32Section 32(1)

capital of the subsidiary company (except in cases where it controls the composition of the board of directors without holding majority of the shares). While the holding company is a member of its subsidiary company, the subsidiary company is not a member of the holding company. As, the subsidiary company was not a member of the assessee subclause

ACIT 4(2), MUMBAI vs. NETWORTH STOCK BROKING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 2268/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(ii)Section 43B

b) of the Act and shall be entitled for depreciation u/s 32 of the Act. The assessee company has prior to demutualization or corporatization of BSE, had in-fact claimed depreciation on the membership of BSE in the return of income filed with the Revenue which was allowed by the Revenue. The Section 50 of the Act is a special

NETWORTH STOCK BROKING LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 2288/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(ii)Section 43B

b) of the Act and shall be entitled for depreciation u/s 32 of the Act. The assessee company has prior to demutualization or corporatization of BSE, had in-fact claimed depreciation on the membership of BSE in the return of income filed with the Revenue which was allowed by the Revenue. The Section 50 of the Act is a special

NETWORTH STOCK BROKING LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 3332/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(ii)Section 43B

b) of the Act and shall be entitled for depreciation u/s 32 of the Act. The assessee company has prior to demutualization or corporatization of BSE, had in-fact claimed depreciation on the membership of BSE in the return of income filed with the Revenue which was allowed by the Revenue. The Section 50 of the Act is a special

ACIT 4(2), MUMBAI vs. NETWORTH STOCK BROKING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 3228/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(ii)Section 43B

b) of the Act and shall be entitled for depreciation u/s 32 of the Act. The assessee company has prior to demutualization or corporatization of BSE, had in-fact claimed depreciation on the membership of BSE in the return of income filed with the Revenue which was allowed by the Revenue. The Section 50 of the Act is a special

SH KELKAR & CO. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT-4, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1611/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sh Kelkar & Company Principal Commissioner Of Limited, Income-Tax-4, Devkaran Mansion, 36, Vs. Room No. 629, 6Th Floor, Mangaldas Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 002. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacs 9778 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri J.D. Mistry, Sr. Advocate & Shri Harsh Kothari Revenue By : Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 13/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/02/2023

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

40A(2)(b) reported in Audit Report and ITR k. Sale of property reported in Form 26QB. Sale of property reported in Form 26QB. 6.2 With reference to the notice u/s 142(1) of the Act dated With reference to the notice u/s 142(1) of the Act dated With reference to the notice

GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(2)(2), MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

ITA 3517/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev KhandelwalFor Respondent: Miss Vidisha Kalara
Section 69Section 69A

gained out of the admission of these appeals. The ld DR submitted before the bench that the justice and right of being heard on merit should not be denied on mere technical reasons. Hence, the ld.DR prayed that the delay in filing these appeals be condoned. 3. On the other hand, the ld.AR, heavily opposed the submissions

GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 4(2), MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

ITA 3516/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev KhandelwalFor Respondent: Miss Vidisha Kalara
Section 69Section 69A

gained out of the admission of these appeals. The ld DR submitted before the bench that the justice and right of being heard on merit should not be denied on mere technical reasons. Hence, the ld.DR prayed that the delay in filing these appeals be condoned. 3. On the other hand, the ld.AR, heavily opposed the submissions

GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 4(2)(2), MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

ITA 3518/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev KhandelwalFor Respondent: Miss Vidisha Kalara
Section 69Section 69A

gained out of the admission of these appeals. The ld DR submitted before the bench that the justice and right of being heard on merit should not be denied on mere technical reasons. Hence, the ld.DR prayed that the delay in filing these appeals be condoned. 3. On the other hand, the ld.AR, heavily opposed the submissions

ACIT 4(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

ITA 4588/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev KhandelwalFor Respondent: Miss Vidisha Kalara
Section 69Section 69A

gained out of the admission of these appeals. The ld DR submitted before the bench that the justice and right of being heard on merit should not be denied on mere technical reasons. Hence, the ld.DR prayed that the delay in filing these appeals be condoned. 3. On the other hand, the ld.AR, heavily opposed the submissions

ACIT 4(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

ITA 4585/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev KhandelwalFor Respondent: Miss Vidisha Kalara
Section 69Section 69A

gained out of the admission of these appeals. The ld DR submitted before the bench that the justice and right of being heard on merit should not be denied on mere technical reasons. Hence, the ld.DR prayed that the delay in filing these appeals be condoned. 3. On the other hand, the ld.AR, heavily opposed the submissions

ACIT 4(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

ITA 4587/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev KhandelwalFor Respondent: Miss Vidisha Kalara
Section 69Section 69A

gained out of the admission of these appeals. The ld DR submitted before the bench that the justice and right of being heard on merit should not be denied on mere technical reasons. Hence, the ld.DR prayed that the delay in filing these appeals be condoned. 3. On the other hand, the ld.AR, heavily opposed the submissions

GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(2), MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

ITA 3514/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev KhandelwalFor Respondent: Miss Vidisha Kalara
Section 69Section 69A

gained out of the admission of these appeals. The ld DR submitted before the bench that the justice and right of being heard on merit should not be denied on mere technical reasons. Hence, the ld.DR prayed that the delay in filing these appeals be condoned. 3. On the other hand, the ld.AR, heavily opposed the submissions