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.

7 results for “capital gains”+ Section 50Dclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai7Bangalore4Kolkata2Hyderabad2Chennai2Delhi1Surat1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)5Addition to Income5Section 144C4Section 144C(5)3Section 453Section 234A2Section 234B2Section 2502Section 50D2Deduction2Double Taxation/DTAA2Capital Gains2

ACIT 14(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. BOMBAY FOOTWEAR PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, all the Grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 94/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji and Shri Ajay BhandariFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 270ASection 45Section 50D

Capital Gains Income computed in accordance with Section 45 read with Section 50D of the Act in the return of income

HUNTSMAN INVESTMENTS (NETHERLANDS),MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAX CIRCLE-2(2)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4222/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2024AY 2021-22
Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 234ASection 234B

section 50D for computation of capital gain on deferred\ngain. The relevant paragraph of the order of DRP is reproduced

THE DY CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. VODAFONE WEST LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

ITA 1634/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2025AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri K.K. VedFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 45Section 47Section 48

50D of the Act, which are neither applicable to the year\nunder consideration nor attracted where the consideration for transfer of the\nasset is 'determinable' or 'nil',\nITAs No.671 & 1634/Ahd/2015 (A.Y. 2010-11) 3\n1.6 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned\nAO has erred in applying the GAAR provisions prescribed under

VODAFONE WEST LIMITED,(FORMERLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE ESSAR GUJARAT LIMITED),AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

ITA 671/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2025AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri K.K. VedFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 45Section 47Section 48

50D of the Act, which are neither applicable to the year\nunder consideration nor attracted where the consideration for transfer of the\nasset is 'determinable' or 'nil';\nITAs No.671 & 1634/Ahd/2015 (A.Y. 2010-11)\n1.6 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned\nAO has erred in applying the GAAR provisions prescribed under section

VARSHA SHRIKANT PARANJAPE,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 25(3) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3252/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhvarsha Shrikant Vs. Acit, Circle 25(3) Paranjape, Paranjape C-10, 6Th Floor, Room No. Bungalow, 2Nd Floor, 34, 601, Pratyaksha Kar Mg Road, Vile Parle Bhavan, Bandra Kurla (East), Mumbai – 400057 Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 51 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaapp6199H Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant By : Ronak Doshi, Chaitanya Doshi & Karan Jain Respondent By : Vithal Machindra Bhosale Date Of Hearing 05.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 20.10.2023

For Appellant: Ronak DoshiFor Respondent: Vithal Machindra Bhosale
Section 147Section 148Section 234Section 234BSection 45(4)

CAPITAL GAIN CANNOT BE TAXED: 3.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. AO erred in substituting full value of consideration declared by the Appellant of Rs.8,61,04,750/- with Rs.13,72,13,911/- and thereby making an addition of Rs. 5,11,09,161/- 3.2 Ld. AO failed to appreciate

ACIT 17(1) , MUMBAI vs. GUPTA C K , MUMBAI

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

ITA 123/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Acit-17(1) Gupta C K O/O The Government Of India 21, K. T. Building, O/O The Dy. Cit Cirr 17(1), Devji Ratansey Marg, Masjid Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Room No. 117, Bunder, Mumbai-400 009 Bkc, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051

For Appellant: Shri Rajen DamaniFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule
Section 250Section 50DSection 50ESection 54E

section 50D of the Act and relied on the CBDT Circular No. 3rd March, 2016 for deferment of tax. The contention of the assessee has not been satisfactory to the ld. A.O. who then passed the assessment order dated 30.12.2018 making an addition towards conversion of ‘capital gain

JIOSTAR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 16 (1), MUMBAI

ITA 7872/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: FixedITAT Mumbai05 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal (V.P.), Shri Aby T. Varkey (J.M.) & Shri Prashant Maharishi (A.M.) आयकर अपील सं. / Ita. No.7872/Mum/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16

Section 255(3)

sections 45, 50A, 50C and 50D etc., substituting the full value of consideration and to sec. 49 substituting cost of acquisition in the computation of income under the head `Capital gains