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 270clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai267Delhi178Chandigarh93Chennai70Ahmedabad55Jaipur50Bangalore30Hyderabad22Pune20Surat19Guwahati18Kolkata17Indore13Cuttack13Cochin9Visakhapatnam7Rajkot7Nagpur6Lucknow4Dehradun4Raipur3Amritsar3Jabalpur1Agra1

Key Topics

Section 2(22)(e)6Section 143(3)5Section 143(2)4Section 14A4Section 404Deduction3Disallowance3Addition to Income3Section 80I2Section 43C

M/S M/S GOYAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, RAIPUR,RAIPUR (CG) vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, 3(1),RAIPUR, RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of my aforesaid observations

ITA 17/BIL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur24 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 17/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Goyal Construction Company Shop No.213-214, Ii Floor, Crystal Arcade, Lodhipara Chowk, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aaffg9964N .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-3(1), Raipur (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal &For Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 4Section 80I

Section 120 of the Act, therefore, we are not inclined to accept the aforesaid claim of the department. We, thus, in terms of our aforesaid observations are unable to concur with the Ld. DR that the Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Jabalpur was validly vested with the jurisdiction over the case of the assessee on the basis of allocation

2
Deemed Dividend2

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR vs. S.P. BUILDCON PVT. LTD., RAIPUR

ITA 35/RPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur28 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No. 35 & 38/Rpr/2023) (Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2016-17) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V S.P. Buildcon Private Limited Circle-1(1), S Ff-06, Shyam Plaza, Pandri Bus Stand, Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur Raipur Pan: Aajcs0653H (अपीलाथ" /Applicant) . (""यथ" / Respondent) . िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Amit M. Jain, Adv. राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 05-09-2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2023

For Appellant: Shri Amit M. Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)Section 40Section 43C

270/-. 16. The next contention raised by the Ld. AR is that expense u/s 40(a)(ia) cannot be made in absence of any expenditure has been claimed by the assessee as deduction from taxable income, reliance placed on following judgment. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Dedicated Healthcare Services (Tpa) India Pvt. Ltd. [2018) 103 CCH 0035 Mum HC] Ther

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR vs. S.P. BUILDCON PVT. LTD., RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 38/RPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur28 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No. 35 & 38/Rpr/2023) (Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2016-17) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V S.P. Buildcon Private Limited Circle-1(1), S Ff-06, Shyam Plaza, Pandri Bus Stand, Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur Raipur Pan: Aajcs0653H (अपीलाथ" /Applicant) . (""यथ" / Respondent) . िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Amit M. Jain, Adv. राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 05-09-2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2023

For Appellant: Shri Amit M. Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)Section 40Section 43C

270/-. 16. The next contention raised by the Ld. AR is that expense u/s 40(a)(ia) cannot be made in absence of any expenditure has been claimed by the assessee as deduction from taxable income, reliance placed on following judgment. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Dedicated Healthcare Services (Tpa) India Pvt. Ltd. [2018) 103 CCH 0035 Mum HC] Ther