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.

2 results for “capital gains”+ Section 43Dclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai74Chennai29Ahmedabad23Delhi22Hyderabad18Pune12Kolkata12SC9Bangalore8Surat6Amritsar5Cochin3Jaipur3Chandigarh2Rajkot2Visakhapatnam1Kerala1Panaji1Telangana1

Key Topics

Section 36(1)(viii)6Section 2634Section 143(3)2Section 43D2

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S SAURASHTRA GRAMIN BANK,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 376/RJT/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot25 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royअपील सं./Ita No.376/Rjt/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 D.C.I.T., M/S. Saurashtra Gramin Bank, Circle-3(1), Vs. Gopalnaga, Opp. Andh Mahila Rajkot. Vikas Gruh, Rajkot.

For Appellant: Ms A.D. Vyas, A.RFor Respondent: Shri
Section 43D

43D shall apply in the case of every public financial institution, scheduled bank, State financial corporation and State industrial investment corporation where its income by way of interest pertains to the following categories of bad and doubtful debts, namely:— (a) (i) Non-viable or sticky advances, i.e., where irregularities of the nature specified in sub-clause (ii) are noticed

SHRI RAJKOT DISTRICT CO-OP. BANK LTD. RAJKOT,RAJKOT vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 26/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot27 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: us, the error noted in the assessment order passed in the case of the assessee under Section 143(3) of the Act for the impugned year i.e. AY 2017-18 was that the assessee’s claim of deduction for creation of special reserve from the profit of “eligible business” as per Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act had been allowed in excess by the Assessing Officer without properly examining the calculation of the claim submitted by the assessee.

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263Section 28Section 36(1)(viii)

43D of the Act to its business of long term finance, further, it has contended in para 2.3 that the apportionment of cost to the Income centers should be based on foots and reasons as also on equitable and scientific basis. Having stated that, the assessee bank Summarily allocated the Indirect cost in the ratio