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 36(1)(va)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai142Ahmedabad89Delhi88Agra59Chandigarh58Chennai53Jaipur39Kolkata37Raipur23Bangalore20Indore14Cochin11Hyderabad10Lucknow7Surat6Pune5Jodhpur5Cuttack4Guwahati3Karnataka3Amritsar3SC3Nagpur2Jabalpur2Allahabad2Rajkot2Punjab & Haryana1Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 43B7

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

M.M. AQUA TECHNOLOGIES LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI - III

Appeals are allowed in the aforesaid terms

C.A. No.-004742-004743 - 2021Supreme Court11 Aug 2021

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

Section 43B

va) of sub-section (1) of section 36, and where such payment has been made otherwise than in cash, the sum has been realised within fifteen days from the due date." 15 20. This being the case, it is important to advert to the facts found in the present case. Both the CIT and the ITAT found, as a matter

SHIV RAJ GUPTA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, DELHI IV

C.A. No.-012044-012044 - 2016Supreme Court22 Jul 2020

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

va) by Finance Act 20 of 2002 with effect from the aforesaid date, any sum received under an agreement for not carrying out any activity in relation to any business was taxed, for the first time, under this provision and the provision not being retrospective would not apply to the facts of the present case. 11. Shri Arijit Prasad, learned