Search: capital gains | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

26 results for “capital gains”+ Deductionclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai5,375 Delhi3,802 Bangalore1,993 Chennai1,889 Ahmedabad1,165 Kolkata1,139 Jaipur814 Pune737 Hyderabad691 Chandigarh448 Indore381 Surat312 Cochin296 Karnataka285 Visakhapatnam216 Raipur200 Rajkot149 Cuttack137 Nagpur131 Agra119 Lucknow115 Amritsar98 Panaji98 SC83 Telangana62 Guwahati61 Dehradun54 Jodhpur54 Patna44 Calcutta42 Jabalpur30 Ranchi26 Kerala20 Varanasi19 Allahabad17 Punjab & Haryana7 Rajasthan5 Orissa3 A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2 Andhra Pradesh1 Gauhati1 ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1 MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1 A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1 Himachal Pradesh1 K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)33 Section 14721 Section 5420 Section 54F16 Addition to Income14 Deduction13 Section 14812 Section 26310 Capital Gains9 Section 153A

SUNITA ADUKIA,RANCHI vs. DCIT CIR-2, RANCHI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 15/RAN/2018[13-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi30 Oct 2019

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Mohan Gargassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Ranjan Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Mondal, Addl. CIT(DR)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 54

deduction u/s 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 from the long term capital gain so determined in the assessment

SRI ANAND KUMAR DHANUKA ,RANCHI vs. ITO WARD-1(1), RANCHI

Showing 1–20 of 26 · Page 1 of 2

8

Long Term Capital Gains7

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 163/RAN/2018[11-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi31 Jul 2020

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.163/Ran/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Devesh Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Indrajit Singh, CIT DR

Section 10Section 22Section 263Section 54Section 54F

deduction claim of Rs. 27,66,230/-. It is not in dispute that the assessee had invested the corresponding long term capital gain

SRI RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR SUKESH KUMAR,RANCHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, RANCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 194/RAN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No.194/Ran/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sri Ramakrishnan Nair Sukesh Kumar.…...…..................……...…..….. Appellant Quarter No.R I/1, Birla Institute Of Technology, Mesra, Ranchi-835215. [Pan: Abtpk1985G] Vs. Acit, Circle-3, Ranchi…..……………………….……….…………….. Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Pranob Ku. Koley , Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 23, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 07, 2022 Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 04.02.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Ranchi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 234ASection 250Section 54F

deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 54F of the Act. The assessee had sold an immovable property and earned capital gains

REENA KHETAN,KODERMA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KODERMA

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 230/RAN/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi19 Aug 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: S/ S/Hri George Mathan & Ratnesh Nandan Sahayratnesh Nandan Sahayratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year : 2012-13 Reena Khetan, M/S. Anand Reena Khetan, M/S. Anand Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - Income Tax Officer, Ward Vihar, Ranchi Patna Road, Vihar, Ranchi Patna Road, 1(5)Koderma Jhumritelaiya, Jhumritelaiya, Koderma, Koderma, Jharkhand Pan/Gir No. .Adlpk 5070 G (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv Devesh Poddar, Adv Revenue By : Shri Khubchand T Pandya, Revenue By Ld Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 20/08/202 2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/08/2 2025 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), Cit(A), Nfac, Nfac, Delhi Delhi Dated Dated 28.8.2023 In In Appeal Appeal No.Cit(A) No.Cit(A) Hazaribag/10153/2019 Hazaribag/10153/2019-20 For The Assessment Year 2012-13 13. 2. Shri Devesh Poddar, Shri Devesh Poddar, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee. Shri Ed For The Assessee. Shri Khubchand T Pandya, Khubchand T Pandya, Ld Sr Dr Represented On Behalf Of The Revenue. Represented On Behalf Of The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri Devesh Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Khubchand T Pandya

capital gain claimed u/s 10(38) of the Act.” 4. It was the submission that the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the ld CIT(A) is liable to be deleted. 5. In reply, ld Sr DR submitted that OCCL has been identified as penny stock by SEBI. It was the further submission that the transaction admittedly

NAMITA PANDEY,PALAMAU vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-3,, RANCHI

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 278/RAN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi09 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm] I.T.A No. 318/Ran/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Dilip Kumar –Vs- Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi [Pan: Adlpk 4085 H] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Hari Lal Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Chandan Das, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 45Section 48Section 50CSection 50C(1)Section 54

capital gains at Rs. 27,20,000/- was unjustified. The appellant stated that he had also purchased a flat for a consideration of Rs. 30,72,750/-(See page 2 of the assessment order). The ld. Assessing Officer erred in not allowing deduction

DILIP KUMAR,RANCHI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 318/RAN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi09 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm] I.T.A No. 318/Ran/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Dilip Kumar –Vs- Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi [Pan: Adlpk 4085 H] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Hari Lal Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Chandan Das, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 45Section 48Section 50CSection 50C(1)Section 54

capital gains at Rs. 27,20,000/- was unjustified. The appellant stated that he had also purchased a flat for a consideration of Rs. 30,72,750/-(See page 2 of the assessment order). The ld. Assessing Officer erred in not allowing deduction

DR. SANJAY KUMAR,RANCHI vs. PR. CIT, RANCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 29/RAN/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi27 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54

capital gain from sale of piece of vacant land. According to PCIT since the property under reference and sold by the assessee is a vacant piece of land and was not used for residential purpose, deduction

TATA CUMMINS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE DCIT CIRCLE-1-JAMSHEDPUR AND THE ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT, NFAC, DELHI, JAMSHEDPUR

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

ITA 430/RAN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi12 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaytata Cummins Private Limited, D.C.I.T., Cummins India Office, Tower-A, 7Th Circle-1, Vs. Floor, Survey No. 21, Balewadi, Pune, Jamshedpur. Maharashtra. Pan No. Aaact 6353 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Capital gains' which is one of the heads of income. If by application of the provisions of Section 45 read with Section 48 which are integrally connected with each other, the income cannot be said to arise, Section 92 of the Act does not come to the aid of Revenue, even though it is an international transaction. The expression 'income

PADAM KUMAE JAIN,RANCHI vs. CIT, CENTRAL, PATNA

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

ITA 289/RAN/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi08 Jul 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.289/Ran/2019 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Padam Kumar Jain Vs. Cit, Central, Cr Building, Beer Chand Patel Marg, Patna – 800001. Ratanlalsurajmal Compound, Main Road, Ranchi – 834001, Jharkhand "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abrpj 0001 E (Assessee) .. (Revenue)

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Chaudhury & Shri Devesh Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Inderjeet Singh, CIT (DR)

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

deducted on the same. (22)Submit details of Short Term Capital Gains earned by you during the year. Also submit

NISHA SARAWGI,RANCHI vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-2, RANCHI

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 137/RAN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi21 Feb 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 2(47)(iii)Section 45(2)Section 54ESection 54F

deduction u/s. 54EA / 54EB / 54EC, the date of transfer shall be the date on which the stock-in-trade is sold or otherwise transferred by the assessee and not on the date of conversion of the capital asset into stock-in- trade. Ld. AR submitted that on conversion of capital asset into stock-in- trade, there is on profit

MEERA SINHA,RANCHI vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), RANCHI

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

ITA 27/RAN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi05 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri M.K.Chowdhary, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ram Chandra Marndi, Sr.DR

Section 147Section 148Section 54

capital gain. Accordingly, ld. AR submitted that ld. AO erred in not giving deduction u/s 54 in respect of the flat

KULDIP SINGH,RANCHI vs. DCIT/ACIT, CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 180/RAN/2025[14-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi10 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.180/Ran/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Kuldip Singh…………………….……….……...................……….……Appellant The Avenue Vishnupuri Marg, Upper Burdwan Compound, Lalpur, Ranchi- 834001. [Pan: Agjps6921P] Vs. Dcit/Acit, Circle-1, Ranchi…...…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Kailash Gautam, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 05, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 10, 2026 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 06.03.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”).

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

capital gain in case of sale of shares of 'S' Ltd. details of which were not reflected in records and, thus, said income escaped assessment- Assessee filed instant petition challenging validity of reassessment proceedings - It was noted that assessee had filed complete details of its share transactions in case of 'S' Ltd. at time of completion of assessment under section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR vs. BENKO TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

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

ITA 436/RAN/2024[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi17 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.436/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Acit, Cc, Jamshedpur…………….…….…............................……….……Appellant Vs. Benko Traders Pvt. Ltd....………...….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent 119, 4Th Floor, Block D, White House, Park Stree, Wb – 700016. [Pan: Aabcb1888R] Appearances By: Shri Akshay Ringasia, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 07, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 17, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Patna For The Assessment Year 2015–16 Dated 25.09.2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income Under Section 139 Of The Act Declaring A Total Income As Nil. The Return Was Processed Under Section 143(1). Subsequently, The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & An Assessment Under Section 143(3) Was Completed On 28.11.2017 Determining The Total Income At ₹9,88,28,406. Based On Information Received From The Investigation Wing, Mumbai, Relating To Alleged Use Of Stock Exchange Platform (Bse/Nse) For Generating Fictitious Long-Term/Short-Term Capital Gains Through Certain Scripts & Alleged Accommodation Entries, The Assessing Officer Recorded Reasons Under Section 147 Of The Act. A Notice Under Section 148 Was Issued The Assessee Filed Its Return Declaring The Same Income

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69C

capital gains through certain scripts and alleged accommodation entries, the Assessing Officer recorded reasons under section 147 of the Act. A notice under section 148 was issued the assessee filed its return declaring the same income I.T.A. No.436/Ran/2024 Benko Traders Pvt. Ltd as earlier. Assessee had filed objections to reopening but rejected. Statutory notices under sections

DILIP KUMAR,DORANDA RANCHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, RANCHI

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 233/RAN/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi17 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhurydilip Kumar, D.C.I.T., 4B, Dr. K.D. Choudhury Apartment, Circle-1, Vs. South Office Para, Doranda, Ranchi. Ranchi-834002 (Jharkhand) Pan No. Adlpk 4085 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 154Section 50Section 50C(2)Section 54

capital gains. 5. These assessee's appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms." 3. It is the contention of learned counsel for the assessee that in the consequent assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer dated 18/12/2019, the Assessing Officer has not followed the direction of the Tribunal and has not examined the claim of assessee in terms

AL KABIR POLYTECNIC,JAMSHEDPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 59/RAN/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi28 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No.59/Ran/2021 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Al Kabir Polytechnic..…………..…...…………….................……...…..….. Appellant Kabir Welfare Trust, Kapali Kabir Nagar, Mango, Jamshedpur. [Pan: Aaifa3884A] Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Jamshedpur...………………..…….……….…………….. Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sharwan Kumar Jha, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Pranob Kumar Koley, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 01, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 28, 2023 Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.08.2021 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 251Section 254

deduction but due to his ignorance or for some other reason could not claim the same in the return of income, but has raised his claim before the appellate authority, the appellate authority should have looked into the same. The assessee cannot be burdened with the taxes which he otherwise is not liable to pay under the law. Even

SRI SAURABH TIWARY,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ACIT CIR-3 , JAMSHEDPUR

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 350/RAN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi16 Jul 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Assessment Year:2013-14 बनाम Sauravh Tiwary Acit, Circle-3, Jamshedpur / Banglow No.9999/287, Vijaya V/S. Garden, 5Th Phase, Baridih, Jamshedpur-831017. Pan No.Agfpt6115J अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent ..

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 234CSection 37(1)

deduction in view of the provisions of Explanation to Sec.37(1) of the Act. Sec.37(1) of the Act and Explanation thereto reads as follows: “(1) Any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature described in sections 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee), laid out or expended wholly

ACIT, RANCHI vs. M/S M/S ADITYA BIRLA CHEMICALS INDIA LTD., PALAMAU

In the result, Assessee`s appeals are allowed and Revenue`s appeals are dismissed and cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed to the extent indicated above

ITA 136/RAN/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi08 Jul 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am I.T.A Nos. 125 To 127/Ran/2015 Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2010-11 M/S. Aditya Birla Chemicals India Vs. Acit, Circle – 1, Ltd. (Formerly Known As Bihar Ranchi Caustic & Chemicals Ltd.) Rehla, Palamau – 822124. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacb 7747 A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 40

capital expenditure. Hon’ble Tribunal in the case of Dy.CIT Vs. Columbia Asia Hospitals (P) Ltd. (2013) 142 ITR 225 (Bang.) (Trib.) has held that the HRD recruitment expenses is allowable as revenue expenditure. Having regard to facts of the case the addition made by the Ld. A.O. cannot be sustained in appeal and is directed to be deleted

ACIT, RANCHI vs. M/S ADITYA BIRLA CHEMICALS INDIA LTD., PALAMAU

In the result, Assessee`s appeals are allowed and Revenue`s appeals are dismissed and cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed to the extent indicated above

ITA 137/RAN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi08 Jul 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am I.T.A Nos. 125 To 127/Ran/2015 Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2010-11 M/S. Aditya Birla Chemicals India Vs. Acit, Circle – 1, Ltd. (Formerly Known As Bihar Ranchi Caustic & Chemicals Ltd.) Rehla, Palamau – 822124. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacb 7747 A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 40

capital expenditure. Hon’ble Tribunal in the case of Dy.CIT Vs. Columbia Asia Hospitals (P) Ltd. (2013) 142 ITR 225 (Bang.) (Trib.) has held that the HRD recruitment expenses is allowable as revenue expenditure. Having regard to facts of the case the addition made by the Ld. A.O. cannot be sustained in appeal and is directed to be deleted

ACIT, RANCHI vs. M/S M/S ADITYA BIRLA CHEMICALS INDIA LTD., PALAMAU

In the result, Assessee`s appeals are allowed and Revenue`s appeals are dismissed and cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed to the extent indicated above

ITA 131/RAN/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi08 Jul 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am I.T.A Nos. 125 To 127/Ran/2015 Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2010-11 M/S. Aditya Birla Chemicals India Vs. Acit, Circle – 1, Ltd. (Formerly Known As Bihar Ranchi Caustic & Chemicals Ltd.) Rehla, Palamau – 822124. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacb 7747 A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 40

capital expenditure. Hon’ble Tribunal in the case of Dy.CIT Vs. Columbia Asia Hospitals (P) Ltd. (2013) 142 ITR 225 (Bang.) (Trib.) has held that the HRD recruitment expenses is allowable as revenue expenditure. Having regard to facts of the case the addition made by the Ld. A.O. cannot be sustained in appeal and is directed to be deleted

M/S ADITYA BIRLA CHEMICALS INDIA LTD.,PALAMAU vs. ACIT, RANCHI

In the result, Assessee`s appeals are allowed and Revenue`s appeals are dismissed and cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed to the extent indicated above

ITA 127/RAN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi08 Jul 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am I.T.A Nos. 125 To 127/Ran/2015 Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2010-11 M/S. Aditya Birla Chemicals India Vs. Acit, Circle – 1, Ltd. (Formerly Known As Bihar Ranchi Caustic & Chemicals Ltd.) Rehla, Palamau – 822124. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacb 7747 A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 40

capital expenditure. Hon’ble Tribunal in the case of Dy.CIT Vs. Columbia Asia Hospitals (P) Ltd. (2013) 142 ITR 225 (Bang.) (Trib.) has held that the HRD recruitment expenses is allowable as revenue expenditure. Having regard to facts of the case the addition made by the Ld. A.O. cannot be sustained in appeal and is directed to be deleted