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.

3 results for “capital gains”+ Section 8Dclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai674Delhi260Chennai135Ahmedabad110Kolkata83Bangalore60Raipur45Hyderabad22Visakhapatnam20Lucknow19Jaipur17Chandigarh16Indore11Cuttack10Pune9Cochin7Guwahati5Ranchi4Rajkot4Nagpur3Surat3Amritsar2Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 684Section 10(38)4Section 14A3Addition to Income3Section 1472Capital Gains2Long Term Capital Gains2Bogus/Accommodation Entry2Penny Stock

ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(1), NAGPUR vs. SHRI NANDKUMAR KHATTUMAL HARCHANDANI , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 411/NAG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 10(38)Section 68

Section 14A(2) was to proceed further to collect material or evidence to determine expenditure, if any, incurred by assessee-But AO instead, relying on Rule 8D applied a formula applicable to assessee who has incurred expenditure by way of interest which is not directly attributable to any particular income or receipt which was not case of present assessee-Tribunal

ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(1), NAGPUR vs. SHRI NANDKUMAR KHATTUMAL HARCHANDANI , NAGPUR

2
Exemption2
ITA 410/NAG/2019[2014-15]Status: Disposed
ITAT Nagpur
25 Feb 2025
AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 10(38)Section 68

section 10(38) of the Act.\n4. (2015) 281 CTR 241 (SC) Andaman Timber Industries -Vs- Commissioner Of Central Excise\nNot allowing assessee to cross-examine witnesses by adjudicating authority though statements of those witnesses were made as basis of impugned order, amounted in serious flaw which make impugned order nullity as it amounted to violation of principles of natural

M/S SHREE STEEL CQASTINGS PVT. LTD ,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -1, NAGPUR

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 112/NAG/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Jun 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhrym/S. Shree Steel Castings Dcit, Circle-1, Nagpur Pvt. Ltd., T/38/1, Midc, Vs. Hingna Road, Nagpur. Pan: Aaccs 4071 J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Hirani &For Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Ld. Sr.D.R
Section 133(6)Section 142Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 250

8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (in short, ‘Rules’) read with section 14A of the Act. 4. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said additions/ disallowances by filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner on legal as well as merit, however of no avail, as the Ld. Commissioner more or less, as on the same footing as observed