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.

6 results for “capital gains”+ Section 2(290)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai462Delhi373Bangalore129Jaipur112Karnataka109Kolkata91Chennai77Chandigarh71Ahmedabad57Hyderabad46Indore44Pune34Raipur26Surat21Calcutta17Nagpur15Cochin13Lucknow11Rajkot11Amritsar9Visakhapatnam8SC6Jodhpur5Telangana4Jabalpur3Guwahati3Rajasthan2Patna1Andhra Pradesh1Agra1

Key Topics

Section 69A5Section 271(1)(C)4Section 36(2)4Section 1043Section 36(1)(vii)3Addition to Income2Penalty2

THE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS (INCOME TAX) vs. TIGER GLOBAL INTERNATIONAL II HOLDINGS

C.A. No.-000262-000262 - 2026Supreme Court15 Jan 2026

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

2 WLR 449 : (1981) 1 All ER 865 (HL)] enunciated the look at test. According to that test, the task of the Revenue is to ascertain the legal nature of the transaction and, while doing so, it has to look at the entire transaction holistically and not to adopt a dissecting approach. 97. One more aspect needs to be reiterated

DELHI FARMING & CONSTRUCTION(P) LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

In the result, we set aside the judgment of the High Court and uphold the

C.A. No.-007525-007527 - 2001Supreme Court26 Mar 2003
For Respondent: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI
Section 104

2(45) of the Act. Thus, the amount of compensation received by the appellant could not have formed part of the "gross total income" within the meaning of clause (iv) of Section 109 of the Act. Consequently, there was no question of its becoming part of "distributable income" as defined in section 109(1). We are hence, of the view

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 6 vs. KHYATI REALTORS PVT. LTD

The appeal is allowed, in the above terms, without order on costs

C.A. No.-005804-005804 - 2022Supreme Court25 Aug 2022

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)

290 and has been accepted by this Court. In other words, s. 10(2) does not deal exhaustively with the deductions, which must be made to arrive at the true profits and gains. 8. To find out whether an expenditure is on the capital account or on revenue, one must consider the expenditure in relation to the business. Since

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX JAIPUR vs. PRAKASH CHAND LUNIA (D) THR LRS

C.A. No.-007689-007690 - 2022Supreme Court24 Apr 2023

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

Section 104Section 112Section 135Section 271Section 69A

Section 10(2) enumerates various items which are admissible as deductions, but it is well settled that they are not exhaustive of all allowances which could be made in ascertaining profits taxable under s. 10(1). In Income Tax Commissioner v. Chitnavis [(1932) LR 59 IA 290, 296, 297] the point for decision was whether a bad debt could

ENGINEERING ANALYSIS CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

C.A. No.-008733-008734 - 2018Supreme Court02 Mar 2021

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

2. DESCRIPTION OF OTHER RIGHTS AND LIMITATIONS xxx xxx xxx Limitations on Reverse Engineering, Decompilation, and Disassembly - You may not reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble the SOFTWARE PRODUCT, except and only to the extent that such activity is expressly permitted by applicable law nothwithstanding this limitation.” “4. COPYRIGHT- All title and intellectual property rights in and to the SOFTWARE PRODUCT

SRI T. ASHOK PAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

The appeal is allowed

C.A. No.-002747-002747 - 2007Supreme Court18 May 2007
For Respondent: Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore
Section 271(1)(C)

Section 271(1)(C) of the Income Tax Act may not be attracted. (2) The revised return having been accepted by the Department and the penalty having not been imposed with reference to the original return filed by assessee, he cannot be considered to be guilty of concealment of income. (3) The fault, if any, was with his tax counsel