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.

4 results for “capital gains”+ Section 10(38)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,944Delhi2,398Bangalore965Chennai844Kolkata631Ahmedabad511Jaipur436Hyderabad319Indore173Pune173Chandigarh155Cochin102Raipur99Lucknow72Nagpur68Rajkot67Surat62Calcutta48Amritsar41SC40Cuttack37Visakhapatnam37Guwahati28Dehradun25Karnataka25Ranchi19Patna17Jodhpur16Agra12Kerala10Jabalpur10Telangana8Allahabad7Varanasi6Rajasthan5Panaji5Orissa4Punjab & Haryana2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2Andhra Pradesh1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 1434Section 2214Section 1402Capital Gains2

M/S.SHEETAL REAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

In the result, the appeal fails and the substantial questions of law

ITA/83/2010HC Orissa08 Feb 2022

Bench: DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR (CJ),MR. JUSTICE R.K.PATTANAIK

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 372A

Section 372A of the Companies Acct, 1956 and the investments were with a long-term view which is evident from the fact that during the financial year in question the assessee has earned Rs. 406.51 lakhs as capital gain from investment activities out of which Rs. 432.09 lakhs was long-term capital gain. Further, the assessee stated that during

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S.S.C.PADHEE

Appeals are disposed of

ITA/3/2018HC Orissa23 Mar 2022

Bench: The Trial Court. I.E., Appellant No.1 As Accused No.1/Company & Appellant Nos.2 To 4 As Accused Nos. 2 To 4.

Section 140Section 143Section 156Section 208Section 221Section 276Section 278Section 421

gains. 4 iv) Accused No.1/Company is expected to pay the income tax either by way of advance tax as required under Section 208 of the Act or at least along with filing of returns in terms of Section 140-A of the Act. As per Section 143 (1) of the Act, the tax liability of Accused No.1 was arrived

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1,BHUBANESWAR vs. SEKHAR KUMAR MOHAPATRA

ITA/9/2024HC Orissa15 Apr 2024

Bench: DR. JUSTICE B.R.SARANGI,MR. JUSTICE GOURISHANKAR SATAPATHY

For Appellant: Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Prashant Vidyarthy, Sr. Panel Counsel
Section 164Section 42

Gain account showing sale proceeds to be Rs. 20.20 lacs. Investigation also revealed that attached immovable properties namely (i) 1A, 1st Floor, Sugam Hemant Apartment, 75 Bondel Road, Kolkata-700019 purchased through registered sale deed 9786 dated 31.08.2009 area 1569 Sq. Ft. total consideration amount with stamp duty and registration Rs. 42,28,764/- (ii) a car-parking space

NALCO vs. COMNR.OF INCOME TAX

ITA/133/2012HC Orissa09 May 2022

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani & The Hon’Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj Date : 16Th January, 2024 Appearance : Sri Vipul Kundalia, Adv. Smt. Oindrilla Ghosal, Adv. ...For The Appellant. Sri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Sri Sanjoy Bhaumik, Adv. Smt. Swapna Das, Adv. ...For The Respondent. 1. Heard Sri Vipul Kundalia, Learned Senior Standing Counsel For The Appellant/Revenue & Sri J.P. Khaitan, Learned Senior Advocate Assisted By Sri Sanjoy Bhaumik & Smt. Swapna Das, Learned Advocates For The Respondent/Assessee. 2. This Appeal Was Admitted By This Court By An Order Dated 30.11.2012 On The Following Substantial Questions Of Law: “1) Whether In View Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Instant Case The Tribunal Erred By Not Considering That Subsides Which May Be Used Freely

Section 43(6)Section 89

38,232/- as revenue in nature and accordingly allowed the deduction. 9. The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Enterprising Enterprise (supra) relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant has no bearing on facts of the present case inasmuch as the controversy involved in that case was as to whether the lease rent paid