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.

6 results for “capital gains”+ Section 482clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi222Mumbai154Bangalore98Chennai59Chandigarh49Jaipur32Ahmedabad30Kolkata26Indore20Lucknow12Hyderabad11Karnataka8Pune6SC6Telangana4Ranchi4Rajkot4Visakhapatnam1Andhra Pradesh1Dehradun1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1Nagpur1Raipur1Rajasthan1Agra1

Key Topics

Section 43B7Section 139(1)3Deduction3Section 2762Section 143(3)2Addition to Income2

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 7 vs. M/S PAVILLE PROJECTS PVT LTD

Appeal is allowed

C.A. No.-006126-006126 - 2021Supreme Court06 Apr 2023

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

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 55(1)(b)

capital gains. Civil Appeal No. 6126 of 2021 Page 14 of 20 5.7 It is submitted that therefore the Commissioner wrongly assumed the jurisdiction under Section 263 of the IT Act on the ground that the order passed by the AO was an erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Making above submissions and relying upon the decision

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 Court
11 Aug 2021

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

Section 43B

gains an amount which, by no stretch of imagination, can be said to have accrued to the assessee or been received by him and it must be confined to cases where the actual consideration received for the transfer is understated and since in such cases it is very difficult, if not impossible, to determine and prove the exact quantum

SASI ENTERPRISES vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Crl.A. No.-000061-000061 - 2007Supreme Court30 Jan 2014

Bench: The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Egmore), Chennai, For The Willful & Deliberate Failure To File Returns For The Assessment Years 1991-92, 1992-93 & Hence Committing Offences Punishable Under Section 276 Cc Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short “The Act”). Complaints Were Filed On 21.8.1997 After Getting The Sanction From The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Ii, Chennai Under Section 279(1) Of The Income Tax Act. Appellants Filed Two Discharge Petitions Under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C., Which Were Dismissed By The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Vide Order Dated 14.6.2006. Appellants Preferred Crl. R.C. Nos.781 To 786 Of 2006 Before The High Court Of Madras Which Were Dismissed By The High Court Vide Its Common Order Dated 2.12.2006, Which Are The Subject Matters Of These Appeals.

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 245(2)Section 276Section 279(1)

482/- on giving effect to the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (B Bench), Chennai dated 1.9.2006 and after giving credit of pre-paid tax for the assessment year 1991-92. For the assessment year 1992-93 for the Page 9 JUDGMENT 9 firm, final tax liability was determined at Rs.52,47,594/- on giving effect to the order

M/S D. N. SINGH THROUGH PARTNER DUDHESHWAR NATH SINGH vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

C.A. No.-003738-003739 - 2023Supreme Court16 May 2023

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH

Section 260A

482 52 claimed that the income must be assessed under Section 22. The claim was rejected on the ground that assessee was only a lessee and had only tenancy rights. The common question which arose in all the cases was the scope of Section 22 of the Act vis-a-vis Section 56 of the Act. Section

ISHIKAWAJMA-HARIMA HEAVY INDUSTRIES LTD. vs. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed in part and to

C.A. No.-000009-000009 - 2007Supreme Court04 Jan 2007
For Respondent: Director of Income Tax, Mumbai
Section 241

Section 17 of the Registration Act, when the same related to the properties of a partnership firm. Therein by reason of an award, the residue upon settlement of accounts on dissolution of the partnership firm was allocated to the partners. It was held that the award did not require any registration. In Hindustan Shipyard (supra), the question which arose

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) vs. AHMEDABAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

C.A. No.-021762-021762 - 2017Supreme Court19 Oct 2022

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

482 (hereafter “All India Spinners Association of Mirzapur”) 9 10. The then Finance Minister, Mr. Morarji Desai, explained the rationale for the new definition on the floor of Lok Sabha: “The definition of ‘charitable purpose’ in that clause is at present so widely worded that it can be taken advantage of even by commercial concerns which, while ostensibly serving