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.

8 results for “capital gains”+ Section 47clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,809Delhi2,166Bangalore1,021Chennai756Ahmedabad608Kolkata535Jaipur448Hyderabad410Chandigarh267Pune265Indore215Karnataka183Cochin161Surat140Raipur132Visakhapatnam112Nagpur84Agra81Rajkot80Calcutta61Cuttack58Amritsar45Lucknow44Guwahati42Telangana37SC34Patna25Ranchi18Jodhpur15Allahabad13Dehradun9Panaji8Kerala7Jabalpur6Rajasthan5Varanasi3A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Orissa1ANIL R. DAVE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1Punjab & Haryana1Andhra Pradesh1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1

Key Topics

Section 80H8Section 143(3)6Disallowance6Addition to Income6Section 475Capital Gains5Short Term Capital Gains4Business Income4Section 543Section 143(2)

SOCIEADADE DE FOMENTO INDL. PVT. LTD.,MARGAO vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MARGAO RANGE, MARGAO

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 105/PAN/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji12 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Sh. Nishant Thakkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Ranjan Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

47 ITA.No.105 & 116/PAN./2018 Sociedade De Fomento Industrial Pvt. Ltd., Margao, Goa. Court in the case of CIT vs. Woodward Governor India (P) Ltd., 312 ITR 254 (SC), held thus:- “4.On further appeal, the impugned order of the Tribunal has allowed the respondent assessee's appeal holding that the claim of expenditure of Rs.62.62 lakhs is permissible under Section

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI vs. M/S SOCIADADE DE FOMENTO INDUSTRIAL P. LTD, MARGAO

3
Section 2(47)2
Section 143(1)2

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 116/PAN/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji12 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Sh. Nishant Thakkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Ranjan Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

47 ITA.No.105 & 116/PAN./2018 Sociedade De Fomento Industrial Pvt. Ltd., Margao, Goa. Court in the case of CIT vs. Woodward Governor India (P) Ltd., 312 ITR 254 (SC), held thus:- “4.On further appeal, the impugned order of the Tribunal has allowed the respondent assessee's appeal holding that the claim of expenditure of Rs.62.62 lakhs is permissible under Section

SMT SUNANDA ANIL SALVE,NIPANI, BELGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, NIPANI

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 241/PAN/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji12 Dec 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

For Respondent: Shri Y. V. Raviraj

47}(v), the importance of the word 'transfer' is due to the reason that under the charging section, viz., section 45, and the capital gain

UMICORE AUTOCAT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ( ORIGINAL APPELLANT UMICORE ANANDEYA (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED),ZUARINAGAR, GOA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2,, MARGAO

In the result, the appeal for the A

ITA 119/PAN/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji05 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.118 & 119/Pan/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

Section 2(47)Section 47

47) of the Act and no capital gain was charged to tax in the A.Y. 2006-07. The AO opined that, by acquisition of the entire share capital of M/s. Anandeya Zinc Oxides Pvt. Ltd. by M/s.Umicore Finance Luxembourg, it violated the mandate of proviso to clause (d) of section

UMICORE AUTOCAT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ( ORIGINAL APPELLANT UMICORE ANANDEYA (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED),ZUARINAGAR, GOA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2,, MARGAO

In the result, the appeal for the A

ITA 118/PAN/2019[2009-10 ]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji05 Oct 2023

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.118 & 119/Pan/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

Section 2(47)Section 47

47) of the Act and no capital gain was charged to tax in the A.Y. 2006-07. The AO opined that, by acquisition of the entire share capital of M/s. Anandeya Zinc Oxides Pvt. Ltd. by M/s.Umicore Finance Luxembourg, it violated the mandate of proviso to clause (d) of section

VIJESH VITHAL TALAULICAR,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 1(1), PANAJI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 230/PAN/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji31 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 230/Pan/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Vijesh Vithal Talaulicar Shri Ramnath Sadan, Dr. Dada Vaidya Road, Panaji, Goa Pan : Aaxpt9647D .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Panaji. ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri D.E. Robinson, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

47,467/- as his “Dead Stock” and not as “capital Asset”. 2. Briefly stated, the assessee had filed his return of income for the assessment year 2010-11 on 28.03.2011, declaring an income of Rs.58,03,780/-. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment u/s. 143(2) of the 3 Vijesh Vithal Talaulicar Vs. ACIT, Circle

M/S SESA RESOURS LTD (FORMERLY V. S. DEMPO & CO. PVT. LTD,PANAJI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), PANAJI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 396/PAN/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji01 Sept 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2004-05 Sesa Resources Limied Vs. Acit, (Formerly V.S. Dempo & Co., Pvt. Circle-1(1), Aayakar Ltd.), Bhavan, Sesa Ghor, 20 Edc Complex, Edc Complex, Patto, Patto, Panaji, Panaji, Goa – 403 001. Goa. Pan: Aaacv7160R

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ranjan Kumar, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 47Section 80H

section 271 (1) (c) of a sum of Rs.7,26,536/-. Your Appellant contends that the Assessee has neither concealed any particulars of income nor furnished any inaccurate particulars thereof. Your Petitioner prays for directions for deleting the penalty as above. 2. Your Petitioner craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete the above Ground of Appeal.” 3. Facts

SHIVKUMAR SANGAPPA SABOJI,BELGAUM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), PANAJI

Appeal is allowed

ITA 160/PAN/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji23 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Shivanand HalbhaviFor Respondent: Smt. Neelima Nadkarni, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 54

47 that he has declined the assessee’s claim of section 54 deduction regarding three flats as to have been constructed/purchased for re- investment of the corresponding capital gains