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 13(1)(d)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai5,373Delhi3,360Bangalore1,896Chennai1,649Kolkata1,032Ahmedabad733Jaipur604Hyderabad511Surat342Indore305Chandigarh236Karnataka230Pune214Cochin172Raipur167Rajkot142Nagpur136Visakhapatnam100Lucknow95Cuttack87Panaji85SC81Agra81Calcutta67Amritsar53Telangana53Guwahati46Ranchi29Dehradun26Jodhpur25Patna22Allahabad18Jabalpur15Kerala14Varanasi12Rajasthan8Orissa4Punjab & Haryana2Andhra Pradesh2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)4Section 143(3)2Section 2742Capital Gains2Exemption2Addition 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

d) the beneficiary, being competent to contract, consents to the delegation." (17) It is true that S. 1 of the Indian Trusts Act makes provisions of the Act inapplicable to public or private religious or charitable endowments; and so, these sections may not in terms apply to the trust now in question. These sections however embody nothing more or less

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 271
Section 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

capital valueand, as the tax had already been imposed, levied and collected on that basis, had made the imposition, levy, collection and recovery of the tax valid, notwithstanding the declaration by the Court that, as “rate”, the levy was incompetent; the legislature had equated the tax collected to a “rate”, giving a new meaning to the expression “rate”; while doing

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 vs. M/S ROYAL JEWELLERS

ITA/81/2024HC Rajasthan15 Oct 2024

Bench: PANKAJ BHANDARI,PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

Section 10

1,94,54,400/-. It is also claimed onvertible portion of debentures ral Mills Ltd. amounting to nder Section 10 (2A) of the Act, nt of Rs.75,936/- from share of r e e n n d d g d s o , f RAJESH KUMAR 2024.07.29 12:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. Punjab & Haryana

C I TEXEMPTIONS JAIPUR vs. J D A JAIPUR

ITA/113/2016HC Rajasthan02 Aug 2024

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,ASHUTOSH KUMAR

For Appellant: THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXFor Respondent: SHRI.JOHN POOMKUDY
Section 143(3)Section 2(13)

1) that the transaction cannot properly be regarded as trade or business, (2) it is s allied to transactions that constitute trade or business, but may not be trade or business itself, (3) it is characterised I.T.A.No.113 of 2016 - 8 - by some of the essential features that make up trade or business but not by all of them

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI SANJAY CHHABRA

ITA/31/2021HC Rajasthan06 May 2022

Bench: Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav

13 discretion to either compensate the employee in lieu of the stipulated notice period or recover the commensurate sum thereof from the employee. Additionally, the employer is vested with the unilateral authority to dispense with the services of the employee even prior to the expiry of the prescribed notice period. 33. At this juncture, it is pertinent to first examine

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

ITA/94/2020HC Rajasthan21 Feb 2024

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,SHUBHA MEHTA

1 and 2 companies and certain other individuals as Directors of 4 listed companies, 3 subsidiaries of one listed company and an unlisted company is bad in law since the Joint APLs merely represents the estate of PDB and thus, had no rights to seek appointment of Directors in companies in which PDB was not a "Member". Further, without prejudice

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

ITA/9/2020HC Rajasthan24 Aug 2023

Bench: AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH,SAMEER JAIN

1 and 2 companies and certain other individuals as Directors of 4 listed companies, 3 subsidiaries of one listed company and an unlisted company is bad in law since the Joint APLs merely represents the estate of PDB and thus, had no rights to seek appointment of Directors in companies in which PDB was not a "Member". Further, without prejudice