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.

3 results for “capital gains”+ Section 28(2)(i)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai4,000Delhi3,219Bangalore1,426Chennai1,079Ahmedabad839Kolkata825Jaipur641Hyderabad550Pune450Chandigarh382Karnataka333Indore303Surat290Cochin194Raipur167Visakhapatnam158Rajkot132Nagpur108Agra97Cuttack85SC75Calcutta70Lucknow70Amritsar69Guwahati64Telangana62Panaji50Patna28Jodhpur27Dehradun27Jabalpur26Ranchi25Varanasi15Allahabad15Kerala11Rajasthan5Orissa4Punjab & Haryana3A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2Andhra Pradesh2D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1

Key Topics

Section 260A2Deduction2Addition to Income2

BHARTI BHUSHAN JINDAL vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LUDHIANA

ITA/385/2014HC Punjab & Haryana03 Jul 2025

Bench: MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA

Section 142(2)Section 143(2)Section 260ASection 271Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 41(1)Section 56Section 57

gains and income from other sources. Under the head ‘income from other sources’, in addition to bank interest, FDRs, interest on unsecured loans was shown against which, the appellant VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2025.07.07 10:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document ITA-385-2014 (O&M) -2- claimed Rs.10,50,000/- as “amount written off unrealizable

M/S PANCHSHEEL TEXTILE MANFAC. & TRAD. vs. C I T AND ANR.

ITA/109/2007HC Punjab & Haryana13 May 2025

Bench: MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA

capital borrowe Ltd by the Asse be set aside bein ANALYSIS OF 28. A p that the learned appellant was no the previous yea (O&M) and other connected ca e fact that even the shares of M any pledge were not sold duri of it. asoning given by the Assessin r Section

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 CHANDIGARH vs. M/S SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CONSUMER HEALTHCARE LTD

ITA/325/2016HC Punjab & Haryana04 Feb 2026

Bench: MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL,MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

Section 260ASection 80

2. The appellant has raised following questions for adjudication by this Court:- (i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT is right in deleting the addition of Rs. 4.5 cr. made on account of treating the compensation received by the assessee on account of termination of trademark