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.

6 results for “capital gains”+ Section 10(23)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai3,455Delhi2,897Bangalore1,359Chennai967Kolkata627Ahmedabad552Jaipur460Hyderabad399Pune230Chandigarh227Indore163Raipur110Cochin93Surat79Nagpur78Lucknow74Rajkot70SC68Visakhapatnam61Amritsar57Karnataka36Guwahati35Panaji32Calcutta32Cuttack30Patna24Dehradun21Jodhpur18Agra11Kerala11Jabalpur10Telangana10Allahabad7Varanasi6Rajasthan6Ranchi4Orissa2Gauhati2Andhra Pradesh2Punjab & Haryana2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1ANIL R. DAVE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)4Section 2742Addition to Income2

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TDS vs. M/S MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT LTD

ITA/6/2021HC Rajasthan01 Nov 2022

Bench: SANDEEP MEHTA,KULDEEP MATHUR

For Respondent: THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

23 :: cannot be treated as a casual or non-recurring receipt under section 10(3) and be subjected to tax under section 56. The argument of the appellant that even if the income cannot be chargeable under section 45, because of the inapplicability of the computation provided under section 48, it could still impose tax under the residuary head

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CENTRAL, vs. MS. HARSHITA MAHESHWARI,

ITA/94/2020HC Rajasthan21 Feb 2024

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,SHUBHA MEHTA

23. It is submitted that the decision of two of the APLs to re-investigate into the extent of the estate and percentage of share holding is beyond their authority and contrary to the unanimous inventory report of 2013. It is submitted that the extent of the estate of PDB had already gone into and inventorized on 15th October

M/S FINGROWTH COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

ITA/9/2020HC Rajasthan24 Aug 2023

Bench: AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH,SAMEER JAIN

23. It is submitted that the decision of two of the APLs to re-investigate into the extent of the estate and percentage of share holding is beyond their authority and contrary to the unanimous inventory report of 2013. It is submitted that the extent of the estate of PDB had already gone into and inventorized on 15th October

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S HARI NARAIN PARWAL

ITA/90/2020HC Rajasthan21 Feb 2024

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,SHUBHA MEHTA

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

gain Rs. 97,02,942/- and long term capital loss Rs. 350,31,73,044/- was claimed as exempt. 7. During the assessment proceedings, it was noticed that the assessee had claimed advances written off under the head “other expenses” in the P & L and loss from business was primarily due to this. 8. Assessment Order under Section

DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (TDS)

ITA/7/2020HC Rajasthan17 Mar 2021

Bench: SANGEET LODHA,RAMESHWAR VYAS

23 money, incurred for their benefit, from the respondent Ex-Chief Ministers; the impugned Legislation is not an Appropriation Act; passing of an Appropriation Act is a pre-condition for expenditure to be incurred by the Executive; and it is not permissible for the Executive to first incur expenditure, and then for an Act to be passed ratifying such expenditure

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI SANJAY CHHABRA

ITA/31/2021HC Rajasthan06 May 2022

Bench: Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav

Capital Transportation Financial Services Ltd. v. Tarun Bhargava25, this Court reiterated that in cases involving private employment, the scope of judicial review is limited, and the remedies are governed solely by contract law principles. It was affirmed that the rights of the employees are confined to what is stipulated in the contract, and even if termination is wrongful, Courts will