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.

27 results for “capital gains”+ Section 57clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,346Delhi1,937Bangalore840Chennai595Ahmedabad539Jaipur440Kolkata426Chandigarh256Pune241Hyderabad221Cochin183Indore180Karnataka157Surat142Visakhapatnam98Raipur91Nagpur66Calcutta58Lucknow55Panaji54Rajkot51Cuttack47Amritsar38Guwahati32Telangana28SC27Agra22Jodhpur16Dehradun14Ranchi13Patna10Jabalpur10Varanasi7Rajasthan7Allahabad5Punjab & Haryana3A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Gauhati1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Andhra Pradesh1Orissa1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 44C11Section 80P11Deduction9Section 17(5)(d)7Section 80P(4)6Capital Gains6Depreciation6Addition to Income6Section 1425Section 260A

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 257 (Tax reference Cases Nos. 3 of 1976 and 1 to 3 of 1978) have to be answered by saying that the question of accrual of interest will have to be determined in accordance with the above decision of this court. The effect of the decision, we may clarify, is that the interest cannot be taken to have accrued

VATSALA SHENOY vs. JT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

Showing 1–20 of 27 · Page 1 of 2

4
Section 36(1)(vii)4
Section 271(1)(c)4
Section 260Section 583(4)(a)

capital assets is chargeable to tax in the previous year in which transfer took place. In this case, transfer took place on July 18, 1969. The second test which needs to be applied is the test of allocation/attribution. This test is spelt out in the judgment of this Court in Mugneeram Bangur and Co. (Land Department) [1965] 57

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 appreciation and investment income. The assessees are regulated by the Financial Services Commission3 in Mauritius and have been granted a Category I Global Business License4 under Section 72(6) of the Financial Services Act, 2007, enacted by the Parliament of Mauritius. 5.1. The business of the assessees, according to them, is wholly controlled and managed by their Board

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

Section 209 of the Companies Act, mercantile system of accounting is made mandatory for companies. In other words, accounting standard which is continuously adopted by an assessee can be superseded or modified by legislative intervention. However, but for such intervention or in cases falling under Section 145(3), the method of accounting undertaken by the assessee continuously is supreme

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 gains ought or ought not to be treated as commercial or business profits on which dividends could be distributed. It would ultimately depend on the facts and circumstances of each case based upon which the Board of Directors take a commercial decision as to whether dividend should be distributed thereupon or not. In any event, it appears

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

57. The methods of valuation, as we know, may be different. A registered valuer is supposed to know as to which method or mode should be adopted for the purpose of valuing particular land or a building having regard to a large number of factors involved therein. The tax on capital gains does not envisage that the valuation given must

THE BANK OF RAJASTHAN LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are dismissed

C.A. No.-003291-003294 - 2009Supreme Court16 Oct 2024

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA

Section 18Section 19Section 20Section 21

57(3)   of   the   IT   Act,   and   the securities are now taxable under the head of “Income from other Sources”.   Therefore, the principles laid down in the case of Vijaya Bank Ltd.1 will squarely apply. He argued that the increase in capital by the acquisition of securities results in the expansion of the Bank's capital base, which helps

COMMNR.,CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS, KERALA vs. M/S. LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD

Appeals are disposed of

C.A. No.-006770-006770 - 2004Supreme Court20 Aug 2015

Capital gains”. Section 45 is a charging section. For the purpose of imposing the charge. Parliament has enacted detailed provisions in order to compute the profits or gains under that head. No existing principle or provision at variance with them can be applied for determining the chargeable profits and gains. All transactions encompassed by Section 45 must fall under

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’, Section 37 of the Act enables 44 the deduction of any expenditure laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business or profession, as the case may be. The fact that an item of expenditure is wholly and exclusively laid out for the purpose of business by itself is not sufficient

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S JINDAL STEEL THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

Appeals are hereby dismissed

C.A. No.-013771-013771 - 2015Supreme Court06 Dec 2023

Bench: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA

Section 260ASection 80

gains on the basis of the rate chargeable by the distribution licensee from the consumer and that the benefit could only be claimed on the basis of the rates fixed by the tariff regulatory commission for sale of electricity by the generating company. Facts being clearly distinguishable, this decision can be of no assistance to the revenue. 46 33. Before

NATIONAL CO-OPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-V, DELHI

C.A. No.-005105-005105 - 2009Supreme Court11 Sept 2020

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL

Section 12Section 12ASection 12BSection 13Section 13(1)Section 24Section 9

capital assets, but not by the appellant-Corporation itself. Thus, a conclusion was reached that, in terms of Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IT Act’) as it stood for the relevant assessment year, any expenditure (except of the prohibited type) laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose

KILLICK NIXON LTD., MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMNR. OF INCOME TAX,MUMBAI

In the result, we allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High

C.A. No.-002614-002614 - 2001Supreme Court25 Nov 2002
For Respondent: DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI AND ORS
Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 87Section 90(1)Section 91Section 92

Section 143(3) of the Act disallowing certain claims and rejecting the contentions of the assessee. The appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Appellate Authority by its order dated 25.09.1998 confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer in respect of the following items: (a) Premium amount of Rs. 3,57,153.00 (b) Depreciation

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CHENNAI vs. TULSYAN NEC LTD

C.A. No.-010677-010679 - 2010Supreme Court16 Dec 2010
Section 115J

Capital gains-long 90,780,066 90,780,066 Gross Total Income 254,281,464 254,281,464 Less deduction under Chapter VI-A 80G-Donation 80HHC-profits 80-1A new industrial unit 1,500,000 6,590,600 11,322,409 1,500,000 6,590,600 11,322,409 Net Income

C0MMNR. OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI vs. ORIENTAL FIRE & GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD

C.A. No.-002741-002741 - 2007Supreme Court18 May 2007

Bench: The Controller Of Insurance.

For Respondent: Oriental Fire & General Insurance Co. Ltd
Section 256Section 44

57,00,000/- http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7 Total Rs.7,33,74,713/- (This question is referred at the instance of the assessee for the assessment year 1974-75) 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that reserve for bad and doubtful

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (IT)-I, MUMBAI vs. M/S. AMERICAN EXPRESS BANK LTD

C.A. No.-008291-008291 - 2015Supreme Court15 Dec 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA

Section 28Section 37(1)Section 44C

capital gain; but, in the case of goodwill generated in a new business, it was not possible to determine the date when it came into existence. In view of these observations of the Supreme Court, we are inclined to hold that if any one or more of the base figures forming part of computations under clauses

NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

C.A. No.-000792-000793 - 2014Supreme Court02 Jul 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHAN

Section 10Section 10(20)Section 131Section 142Section 142(1)Section 194ASection 3

Capital gains” or “Income from other sources” or from a trade or business carried on by it was earlier excluded in computing the total income of the Authority of a previous year. However, in view of the amendment, with effect from 1-4-2003 the Explanation “local authority” was defined to include only the authorities enumerated in the Explanation, which

M/S. SOUTHERN TECHNOLOGIES LTD. vs. JOINT COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, COIMBATORE

C.A. No.-001337-001337 - 2003Supreme Court11 Jan 2010
Section 145Section 2(24)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 37Section 37(1)

gains, etc. which items are all credited to P&L Account, but, which are exempted under the IT Act would become taxable income which is not the intention of Section 45Q of the IT Act. That, the said 1998 Directions cannot be taken as an excuse by the NBFC to compute lower taxable income under

M/S.VIRTUAL SOFT SYSTEMS LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-I

C.A. No.-007115-007115 - 2005Supreme Court06 Feb 2007
For Respondent: Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-I
Section 260ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

57,51,520.00 and Rs. 1,15,000.00. He concluded that by adding these figures the total amount of Rs. 68,94,982.00 was the income in respect of which inaccurate particulars had been furnished. The tax was computed at Rs. 31,71,692.00. It was held that the tax sought to be evaded

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

57. This Court is called upon to decide the ambit of the word ‘owner’ in section 69A in the facts before us. This Court agrees with the High Court that the concept of ‘owner’ cannot be divorced from the context in which the expression is employed. In the case of Jodha Mal (supra), the property undoubtedly stood vested as evacuee

MANSAROVAR COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI

C.A. No.-005769-005769 - 2022Supreme Court10 Apr 2023

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

Section 26Section 6(3)

capital gains in a particular case may tantamount to a failure in raising a substantial question of law in terms of Section 260A of the Act. However, the same may not apply on interest as the interest is automatic and mandatory. 4.14 Making above submissions and relying upon the aforesaid decisions, it is prayed that the present appeals be dismissed