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.

5 results for “capital gains”+ Section 35Dclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai120Delhi80Chennai45Ahmedabad41Raipur18Bangalore15Chandigarh14Cochin8Hyderabad8Jaipur8Kolkata7Karnataka5Pune5Visakhapatnam4Cuttack4Guwahati3Rajkot2Indore1Kerala1Punjab & Haryana1SC1Telangana1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)8Section 35D4Section 271(1)(c)4Depreciation4Penalty4Disallowance4

SOLAPUR SUGAR LIMITED,,SOLAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, SOLAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1425/PUN/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Aug 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 133(2)Section 35DSection 36Section 55(1)(b)

section 55(1)(b) of the Act observed that these expenses of Rs 13,18,124/- are not cost of improvement and there is no nexus to capital asset. The A.O rejected the computed long term capital gain at Rs. 10,76,08,110/-. 4. The ld. CIT(A) vide para 5.5 of his order observed that ostensibly, the expenses

DCIT,CIR.-1(1),, PUNE vs. MANTRI HOUSING & CONSTRUCTIONS LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 1027/PUN/2004[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2018AY 1998-99

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Nirupama Kotru
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

35D of the income Tax Act, 1961 was denied to the assessee, as the assessee could not prove the case of expansion of business. 5. The order of the CIT(A) be vacated and that of the A.O. be restored.” 6. The case file reveals that these are old matters and they are continuously getting adjourned since 2013. The case

ACIT, CIR.-1(2),, PUNE vs. GLOBAL INFRASTRUCTURE & TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 351/PUN/2007[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2018AY 1996-97

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Nirupama Kotru
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

35D of the income Tax Act, 1961 was denied to the assessee, as the assessee could not prove the case of expansion of business. 5. The order of the CIT(A) be vacated and that of the A.O. be restored.” 6. The case file reveals that these are old matters and they are continuously getting adjourned since 2013. The case

DCIT,CIR.-1(1),, PUNE vs. GLOBAL INFRASTRUCTURE & TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 624/PUN/2004[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2018AY 1996-97

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Nirupama Kotru
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

35D of the income Tax Act, 1961 was denied to the assessee, as the assessee could not prove the case of expansion of business. 5. The order of the CIT(A) be vacated and that of the A.O. be restored.” 6. The case file reveals that these are old matters and they are continuously getting adjourned since 2013. The case

M/S. GLOBAL INFRASTRUCTURE & TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,,PUNE vs. ITO, WD.-3(3),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 722/PUN/2004[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2018AY 1996-97

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Nirupama Kotru
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

35D of the income Tax Act, 1961 was denied to the assessee, as the assessee could not prove the case of expansion of business. 5. The order of the CIT(A) be vacated and that of the A.O. be restored.” 6. The case file reveals that these are old matters and they are continuously getting adjourned since 2013. The case