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.

11 results for “capital gains”+ Permanent Establishmentclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi705Mumbai482Bangalore208Chennai184Karnataka122Kolkata97Jaipur82Ahmedabad70Chandigarh51Indore41Raipur40Cochin21Visakhapatnam19Pune18Calcutta16Lucknow15SC15Telangana15Rajkot11Guwahati11Cuttack8Dehradun8Amritsar7Nagpur5Hyderabad5Panaji4Varanasi3Rajasthan2Surat2Agra2Andhra Pradesh1Kerala1

Key Topics

Section 4024Section 143(3)9Disallowance9TDS8Addition to Income8Section 2636Permanent Establishment6Section 172(3)4Deduction3Section 172(4)

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), RAJKOT vs. M/S. DRB COMMODITIES PVT. LTD., RAJKOT

ITA 231/RJT/2017[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot24 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad, CIT D.R
Section 143(3)Section 40

permanent establishment in India. The specific case made out by the appellant that such commission has been made to the foreign parties for rendering services abroad in the nature of soliciting customers for its export business activities. Such agents have provided services for outside India and never came to India at the relevant previous year. Further that the commission

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(2), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S DML EXIM PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

ITA 232/RJT/2017[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot
2
Section 372
Exemption2
24 Feb 2022
AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad, CIT D.R
Section 143(3)Section 40

permanent establishment in India. The specific case made out by the appellant that such commission has been made to the foreign parties for rendering services abroad in the nature of soliciting customers for its export business activities. Such agents have provided services for outside India and never came to India at the relevant previous year. Further that the commission

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), RAJKOT vs. M/S. DRB COMMODITIES PVT. LTD., RAJKOT

ITA 234/RJT/2017[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot24 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad, CIT D.R
Section 143(3)Section 40

permanent establishment in India. The specific case made out by the appellant that such commission has been made to the foreign parties for rendering services abroad in the nature of soliciting customers for its export business activities. Such agents have provided services for outside India and never came to India at the relevant previous year. Further that the commission

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), RAJKOT vs. M/S. D.M.L. WORLD TRADE PVT. LTD., RAJKOT

ITA 233/RJT/2017[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot24 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad, CIT D.R
Section 143(3)Section 40

permanent establishment in India. The specific case made out by the appellant that such commission has been made to the foreign parties for rendering services abroad in the nature of soliciting customers for its export business activities. Such agents have provided services for outside India and never came to India at the relevant previous year. Further that the commission

THE DCIT, CIRCLE 2(1), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. SMT MEENABEN H LAKHANI, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

ITA 229/RJT/2017[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot24 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad, CIT D.R
Section 143(3)Section 40

permanent establishment in India. The specific case made out by the appellant that such commission has been made to the foreign parties for rendering services abroad in the nature of soliciting customers for its export business activities. Such agents have provided services for outside India and never came to India at the relevant previous year. Further that the commission

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1 (2), RAJKOT vs. SHRI NARENDRA NANJIBHAI DAVDA, RAJKOT

ITA 230/RJT/2017[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot24 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad, CIT D.R
Section 143(3)Section 40

permanent establishment in India. The specific case made out by the appellant that such commission has been made to the foreign parties for rendering services abroad in the nature of soliciting customers for its export business activities. Such agents have provided services for outside India and never came to India at the relevant previous year. Further that the commission

ISS SHIPPING INDIA PVT. LTD., (AS AGENT FOR MAERSK TANKERS SINGAPORE PTE. LTD., SINGAPORE),NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX ( INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),, RAJKOT

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 429/RJT/2018[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot21 Nov 2019AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Jitendra Kumar, CIT-D.R
Section 172(3)Section 172(4)

permanent certificate of registry in respect of the ship, (IB) For the year of assessment 2009 find subsequent years of assessment, the income of a shipping enterprise referred to in this section shall include income derived from foreign exchange and risk management activities which are carried out in connection with and incidental to the operation by the shipping enterprise

ISS SHIPPING INDIA PVT. LTD., (AS AGENT FOR MAERSK TANKERS SINGAPORE PTE. LTD., SINGAPORE),NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX ( INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),, RAJKOT

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 430/RJT/2018[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot21 Nov 2019AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Jitendra Kumar, CIT-D.R
Section 172(3)Section 172(4)

permanent certificate of registry in respect of the ship, (IB) For the year of assessment 2009 find subsequent years of assessment, the income of a shipping enterprise referred to in this section shall include income derived from foreign exchange and risk management activities which are carried out in connection with and incidental to the operation by the shipping enterprise

HIRAVATI MARINE PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.,,PORBANDAR vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-2,, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 306/RJT/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot05 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed"नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2007-2008 Addl. Commissioner Of Hiravati Marine Products Pvt. Income Tax, Vs Ltd. Range-2, Porbandar, Jamnagar. Pan No: Aabch2110C "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2008-2009

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Gokani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Verma, Sr.D.R
Section 37

establish the genuineness of the transactions with these parties. Thus the assessee has failed to prove that the advances were given in the course of business. In view of the above, the claim of the assessee for the business loss for Rs. 2,10,17,075/- was rejected and the same added to the total income of the assessee

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2,, JAMNAGAR vs. M/S HIRAVATI MARINE PRODUCTS (P) LTD.,, PORBANDAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 947/RJT/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot05 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed"नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2007-2008 Addl. Commissioner Of Hiravati Marine Products Pvt. Income Tax, Vs Ltd. Range-2, Porbandar, Jamnagar. Pan No: Aabch2110C "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2008-2009

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Gokani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Verma, Sr.D.R
Section 37

establish the genuineness of the transactions with these parties. Thus the assessee has failed to prove that the advances were given in the course of business. In view of the above, the claim of the assessee for the business loss for Rs. 2,10,17,075/- was rejected and the same added to the total income of the assessee

SAURASHTRA GRAMIN BANK MANAGER (F & A), RAJKOT,RAJKOT vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I,, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 37/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 37/Rjt/2022 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Saurashtra Gramin Bank Vs. The Pr. Cit-1, Manager (F & A), Rajkot 1St Floor Wing 2, Lic Jeevan Prakash Building, Tagore Road, Rajkot-360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahas2116H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. A.D. Vyas, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(viii)Section 37(1)

Permanent’ securities at present.  Classification of investments, shifting of investments among the three categories, valuation of the investments, methodology for booking profit/loss on sale of investments and providing for depreciation should be in accordance with the guidelines in the Annex.  The risk-weights assigned to the various securities at present would remain unchanged. 2.1 The classification of the existing investments