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.

2 results for “capital gains”+ Section 9(1)(vb)clear

Sorted by relevance

Chandigarh48Delhi6Bangalore3Mumbai2Surat2Kolkata1Hyderabad1Ahmedabad1Patna1SC1

Key Topics

Section 2635Section 92C3Section 143(3)3

TOPSGRUP ELECTRONICS SYSTEMS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 8(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2009-10 is allowed as indicated above

ITA 2115/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Feb 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Amit Shuklam/S. Topsgrup Electronic Systems Income Tax Officer-8(3)(3) Ltd. (Previsously Tops Sequipment Ltd.) Àayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 5, Royal Palms Golf & Country Club Vs. Mumbai 400020 Aarey Milk Colony, Goregaon (E) Mumbai 400065 Pan - Aaact3291K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.M. LalaFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Kumar Shah
Section 143(3)Section 92C

VB, Netherlands. It was submitted by the assessee that while this transaction is admittedly an international transaction under section 92B of the Act, however no income has arisen out of this transaction. Therefore, the learned A.R. for the assessee submitted that in the absence of income, this transaction is not required to be benchmarked and the same is beyond

ELDER IT SOLUTIONS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 4, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2461/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2015AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri A.V.SondeFor Respondent: Manjunatha R.Swamy
Section 143(3)Section 263

capital, is illegal. Hon‟ble Madras High Court in the case of Smt. D.Valliammal, 230 ITR 695 held that invocation of revisional jurisdiction by CIT on the ground that verification of account was needed after obtaining clarification from the assessee without recording ay finding that the ITO‟s order was erroneous and prejudicial and even after accepting the explanation