BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtAI 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.

77 results for “capital gains”+ Section 32clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,554Delhi1,140Chennai397Bangalore330Ahmedabad310Jaipur283Hyderabad246Chandigarh192Kolkata178Indore121Pune110Raipur105Cochin82SC77Rajkot75Nagpur64Surat56Visakhapatnam47Amritsar35Panaji34Lucknow32Guwahati29Dehradun28Cuttack23Agra17Patna17Jodhpur12Ranchi8Varanasi7Allahabad5Jabalpur3A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1

Key Topics

Deduction30Section 8024Depreciation24Section 80H23Addition to Income19Section 41(2)17Section 10(20)17Section 3213Exemption13Capital Gains

RAJ PAL SINGH vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HARYANA

In the result, this appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed

C.A. No.-002416-002416 - 2010Supreme Court25 Aug 2020

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

Section 256(1)Section 4Section 45Section 6

Section 6 thereof, did not divest the owner of his right in respect of the property in question. 32. Having thus taken note of the general principles governing “capital gains

VATSALA SHENOY vs. JT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

C.A. No.-001234-001234 - 2012Supreme Court18 Oct 2016
Section 260

Showing 1–20 of 77 · Page 1 of 4

12
Section 44C11
Section 80P11
Section 583(4)(a)

32,55,640 TOTAL INCOME (I + II + III + IV) Rs. 13,78,40,987 TOTAL INCOME EXCLUDING LONGTERM CAPITAL-GAINS Rs. 2,15,90,743” 12) As can be gathered from the above, the total proceeds of 92 crores are ₹ Page 11 JUDGMENT 11 first apportioned among the assessees in the ratio in which they had received the said amount

M/S FIBRE BOARDS (P) LTD BANGALOARE vs. CIT BANGALORE

C.A. No.-005525-005526 - 2005Supreme Court11 Aug 2015
Section 280YSection 280ZSection 54G

capital gains arising in such cases will be exempt to the extent they are utilized within a period of one year before or three years after the date of transfer, for the purchase of new machinery or plant or acquiring land and building, etc., for the purpose of the business in the 15 Page 16 JUDGMENT area to which

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MAHENDRA MILLS

The appeal is dismissed

C.A. No.-005394-005394 - 1994Supreme Court15 Mar 2000
For Respondent: MAHENDRA MILLS
Section 32Section 34Section 72Section 73

Capital gains. Various sections deal with how income, profits and gains under each http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 21 head have to be computed. Section 10 deals with the computation of profits and gains of any business carried on by an assessee. Section 10(2) prescribes the allowances which have to be deducted before computing

THE COMMONWEALTH TRUST LTD., CALICUT, KERALA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KERALA II, ERNAKULAM

- 0Supreme Court30 Jul 1997
For Respondent: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KERALA II, ERNAKULAM
Section 261Section 40Section 50(1)Section 55(2)Section 55(2)(i)

32 or sub-section (2) or sub-section (2A) of section 41, as the case may be, the computation for this purpose being made with reference to the period commencing from the 1st day of January, 1954, in cases to which clause (2) of section 50 applies; (b) "cost of any improvement", in relation to capital assets, - (i) where

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

capital gains tax. Reliance was placed on Vodafone, particularly its 16 For short, “OECD” 17 For short, "POEM” 32 recognition of Judicial Anti-Avoidance Rules and the distinction between “influencing power” and “persuasive power”. 7.9. The learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that Circular No. 789 was a policy measure intended to provide certainty to FIIs and similarly placed investors

M/S JINDAL EQUIPMENT LEASING CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms

C.A. No.-000152-000152 - 2026Supreme Court09 Jan 2026

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

Section 143(3)Section 28Section 47

capital gains, once this Court has recognized that amalgamation entails a transfer, that conclusion cannot be ignored while considering the ambit of Section 28. 16.4. The real question, therefore, is whether an amalgamation – though, in company law, it operates as a statutory substitution of rights – nonetheless gives 36 rise to taxable business profits under Section

SHARP BUSINESS SYSTEM THR. FINANCE DIRECTOR MR. YOSHIHISA MIZUNO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III N.D

The appeals are hereby disposed of in terms of

C.A. No.-004072-004072 - 2014Supreme Court19 Dec 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA

Section 32(1)(ii)

gains of business or profession’ subject to fulfillment of the following conditions: (i) if the expenditure does not fall within the ambit of Sections 30 to 36 of the Act; (ii) if the expenditure has been incurred in the accounting year relevant to the assessment year under consideration; 22 (iii) it should be expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,MEERUT, ETC. ETC. vs. M/S VIRMANI INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, ETC. ETC

Appeal is allowed accordingly

- 0Supreme Court12 Oct 1995
For Respondent: M/S VIRMANI INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, ETC. ETC
Section 256(1)Section 32Section 32(1)Section 32(2)

gains chargeable being less than the allowance then, subject to the http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10 provisions of sub-section (2) of section 72 and sub-section (3) of section 73, the allowance or part of the allowance to which effect has not been given as the case may be, shall be added

COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. D.P. SANDU BROS CHEMBUR (P) LTD

C.A. No.-002335-002335 - 2003Supreme Court31 Jan 2005
For Respondent: D.P. Sandu Bros. Chembur (P) Ltd
Section 10(3)Section 2(24)(vi)Section 45Section 48Section 55(2)Section 56

capital receipt by the assessee under any other Section. This Court, as early as in 1957 had, in United Commercial Bank Ltd. V. Commissioner of Income Tax Ltd., West Bengal (1957) 32 ITR 688, held that the heads of income provided for in the Sections of the Income Tax Act, 1922 are mutually exclusive and where any item of income

VANIA SILK MILLS (P) LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the’ appeal succeeds and the impugned

- 0Supreme Court14 Aug 1991
For Respondent: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, AHMEDABAD
Section 45

32,533 received on account of the insurance claim and the original ’cost of the machinery, i.e., Rs.2,81,741, treating the same as capital gains chargeable under Section

PLASTIBLENDS INDIA LIMITED THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR vs. ADDL.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE 8(2) MUMBAI

C.A. No.-000238-000238 - 2012Supreme Court09 Oct 2017

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI

Section 143(1)(a)Section 32Section 80

gains of the business, Sections 30 to 43D had to be applied which would embrace Section 32 as well. 12 8) Counsel appearing in other appeals for the assessees made their submissions almost on the same lines thereby virtually adopting the arguments advanced by Mr. Percy. 9) Learned counsel for the Revenue emphatically refuted the aforesaid submissions. He extensively referred

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATIALA vs. PATIALA FLOUR MILLS CO. PVT. LTD., PATIALA

- 0Supreme Court06 Oct 1968
For Respondent: PATIALA FLOUR MILLS CO. PVT. LTD., PATIALA
Section 1Section 32Section 32ASection 80Section 801Section 80J

32 and sub-section (2) of section 32A, no part of such losses, depreciation allowance or development rebate would be liable to be adjusted over again in computing the profits or gains of the new industrial undertaking for applying the provision contained in sub-section (1) of section 80J. The same mode of computation must prevail also in applying

MISS DHUN DADABHOY KAPADIA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BOMBAY

- 0Supreme Court31 Oct 1966
For Respondent: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BOMBAY
Section 12BSection 66A(2)

32) ACT: Income-tax Act (11 of 1922), s. 12B(2)-Renouncement of right shares for money value-Depreciation in value of original shares-Capital gain how calculated. HEADNOTE: The assessee was holding ’as an investment 710 shares in a company. She became entitled to receive 710 new shares issued by the company, with an option to renounce them

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. BALBIR SINGH MAINI

The appeals are dismissed with no order as to

C.A. No.-015619-015619 - 2017Supreme Court04 Oct 2017

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

gains" shall be computed, by deducting from the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer of the capital asset the following amounts, namely: 26 (i) expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with such transfer; (ii) the cost of acquisition of the asset and the cost of any improvement thereto:” 18. Section

NAVINCHANDRA MAFATLAL vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,BOMBAY CITY

- 0Supreme Court01 Nov 1954
For Respondent: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,BOMBAY CITY
Section 12Section 66(1)

32, sections 37 and 38) capital gains have been included as taxable income. In should be remembered that the question

DILIP N. SHROFF vs. JOINT COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI &ANR

The appeal is allowed

C.A. No.-002746-002746 - 2007Supreme Court18 May 2007
For Respondent: Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai & Anr

capital gains by the assessee was found to be wrong obviously, the finding of the revenue authorities and the Tribunal that the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars cannot be faulted..." 16. Mr. Anil B. Dewan, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 26 of the Appellant, would contend that the First Respondent

M/S. VIJAY INDUSTRIES vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are allowed

C.A. No.-001581-001582 - 2005Supreme Court01 Mar 2019

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI

Section 80H

capital gains and income from other sources. Insofar as income under the head ‘profits and gains of business or professions’ is concerned, provisions thereto are contained in Sections 28 to 44DB of the Act. Section 28 specifies various incomes which shall be chargeable to income tax under this head. Thereafter, Section 29 provides that income referred to in Section

M/S. I.C.D.S. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are allowed; the impugned

C.A. No.-003282-003282 - 2008Supreme Court14 Jan 2013
Section 32

capital asset and thereby losing gradually investment caused by wear and tear, and would need to replace the same by having lost its value fully over a period of time.” 3 (1999) 7 SCC 106 16 Page 17 JUDGMENT 21. Black’s Law Dictionary (6th Edn.) defines 'owner' as under: “Owner. The person in whom is vested the ownership, dominion

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(CENTRAL) vs. M/S. GWALIOR RAYON SILK MFG.(WVG.)CO.LTD

The appeal is partly allowed

C.A. No.-002916-002916 - 1980Supreme Court29 Apr 1992
For Respondent: GWALIOR RAYON SILK MANUFACTURING CO. LTD
Section 256(1)Section 256(2)Section 32

Section 32 provides depreciation of capital assets in respect of buildings, machinery, plant or furniture. This Court in C.I.T. v. Ram Gopal Mills Ltd. (41 I.T.R. 280), held that "the basic and normal scheme of depreciation under the Act is that it decreases every year being a percentage of the written down value which in the first year