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 10Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai301Delhi268Bangalore220Kolkata110Chennai80Hyderabad45Ahmedabad38Jaipur22Cuttack15Pune14Karnataka12Lucknow11Amritsar9Indore9Surat8Chandigarh6Telangana6Guwahati3Cochin2Patna2Dehradun2Visakhapatnam1Jabalpur1Nagpur1Rajkot1

Key Topics

Section 10B13Section 2608Deduction6Section 260A4Section 104Set Off of Losses2

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. M/s Matrix Power Pvt Ltd.,

ITTA/386/2013HC Telangana03 Sept 2013
Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 260A

capital gains). Under section 72, a provision has been made for carry forward and setting off of a loss sustained against the head of profits and gains of business or profession. Under section 72, where a loss which has been sustained under the head of profits and gains of business or profession cannot be set-off against income under

Commissioner of Income Tax, Guntur vs. Agricultural Market Committee, Sattenapalli

In the result, the order of the income tax appellate tribunal

ITTA/377/2012HC Telangana06 Nov 2012

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

Section 10B
Section 10B(5)
Section 234B
Section 260
Section 260A
Section 70

gains”, is a loss, the assessee shall be entitled to have the amount of such loss set off against his income from any other source under the same head. (2) Where the result of the computation made for any assessment year under Sections 48 to 55 in respect of any short-term capital asset is a loss, the assessee shall

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions0 vs. Kalinga Cultural Trust

In the result, we do not find any

ITTA/580/2016HC Telangana28 Nov 2016

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

Section 10Section 260Section 260A

capital gain earned. It is urged that since, the tribunal has failed to determine the core issue with regard to colorable devise adopted by the 15 assessee, to evade tax, therefore, the matter be remitted to the tribunal for decision afresh in accordance with law. In support of aforesaid submissions, the reliance is placed on decision of Supreme Court

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-5 vs. M/s. VBC Industries Limited

In the result, we do not find any

ITTA/559/2015HC Telangana16 Feb 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 10Section 260Section 260A

capital gain earned. It is urged that since, the tribunal has failed to determine the core issue with regard to colorable devise adopted by the 15 assessee, to evade tax, therefore, the matter be remitted to the tribunal for decision afresh in accordance with law. In support of aforesaid submissions, the reliance is placed on decision of Supreme Court

The commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. M/s Bhagyanagar Studios

The appeals are disposed of in the manner indicated above

ITTA/272/2015HC Telangana29 Feb 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 10BSection 254(2)Section 260

gains as are derived by an export oriented undertaking from the export of articles or things. The exemption would be for a period of ten years consecutively starting from the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the manufacturing activity begins. Sub Section (2) to Section 10B lays down the conditions which the undertaking has to fulfill

The Commissioner of Income Tax- I vs. M/s. Avon Organics Limited

ITTA/257/2012HC Telangana17 Jul 2012

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

Section 10B

10B, of the Income Tax Act (“Act”, for short), for a period commencing from 1.4.2004 to 31.5.2004, contending that it had obtained approval as a 100% Export Oriented Unit under STPI scheme and had commenced operations from 1.4.2004. The Assessing Officer as well as the Tribunal have held that the appellant assessee had commenced its operations only from