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.

3 results for “capital gains”+ Section 23Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi59Mumbai31Chennai19Kolkata14Pune12Bangalore11Chandigarh8Indore7Surat7Jaipur7Ahmedabad5Nagpur4SC3Visakhapatnam2Hyderabad2Lucknow2Varanasi2Agra1Dehradun1Cuttack1Andhra Pradesh1Raipur1Rajkot1Amritsar1Allahabad1Karnataka1Jodhpur1

Key Topics

Section 10410Section 2(22)(e)5Section 23A3Section 22Addition to Income2

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

capital gain was considered to be notional profits. The availability of these gains in the hands of a company did not render these gains commercial profits. The Calcutta High Court in CIT v. N. Guin and Co. (P) Ltd., (1979) 116 ITR 475, while deciding the case under section 23A

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MYSODET

C.A. No.-004975-004975 - 1994Supreme Court17 Mar 1999
For Respondent: M/S. MYSODET (P) LTD., BANGALORE
Section 104
Section 2(22)(e)
Section 23A
Section 256(1)

23A of the 1922 Act (equivalent to Section 104 of the Act). The Karnataka High Court preferred to rely upon the Calcutta High Court judgment and allowed the reference, holding in favour of the assessee. Now the Revenue is in appeal before us. It was contended on behalf of the Revenue in this appeal that even

NATIONAL TRAVEL SERVICES vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI VIII

C.A. No.-002068-002071 - 2012Supreme Court18 Jan 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

Section 2Section 2(22)(e)Section 23A

gain-saying the fact that the H.U.F. was not the shareholder of the company. Mr. Sen did not contend otherwise. 9. Section 2 (6A)(e) gives an artificial definition of “dividend”. It does not take in dividend actually declared or received. The dividend taken note of by that provision is a deemed dividend and not a real dividend. The loan