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.

10 results for “capital gains”+ Section 148(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,128Delhi1,573Chennai645Jaipur608Bangalore588Ahmedabad524Hyderabad437Kolkata432Surat382Pune323Chandigarh247Indore246Cochin186Karnataka174Visakhapatnam169Nagpur111Agra107Rajkot107Raipur95Lucknow81Amritsar80Calcutta58Panaji54Patna48Guwahati42Jabalpur28Jodhpur26Ranchi24Cuttack23SC19Dehradun18Allahabad14Telangana10Varanasi6Kerala4Rajasthan4Orissa2Andhra Pradesh2Punjab & Haryana1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 54F7Section 260A6Section 2603Section 1483Section 1473Section 143(3)3Capital Gains3Addition to Income3Section 10(38)2

Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), vs. M/s Country Club Inda Limited

ITTA/667/2014HC Telangana29 Jan 2015
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 260A

148 of the Act calling upon the Assessee to file its return of income for the AY 2003-04. In response to the aforesaid notice, the Assessee filed its return of income on 16th May, 2006 disclosing its taxable income as ‗Nil‘. Thereafter, the AO issued notice under Section 143(2) of the Act. In response to the aforesaid notices

The Commissioner of Income Tax(Central) vs. M/s.Madhu Enterprises

ITTA/127/2025HC Telangana12 Feb 2025

Bench: The Learned

Section 132Section 143(3)
Section 22
Long Term Capital Gains2
Exemption2
Section 147
Section 148
Section 153A
Section 260A
Section 54F

1) of the act, the said section would not apply if the assessee owned more than one residential house. Clause (i) of the proviso to Section 54F of the Act is extracted below: “Section 54F. Capital gain on transfer of certain capital assets not to be charged in case of investment in residential house. *** *** *** Provided that nothing contained in this

SMT. SHANTHA VIDYASAGAR ANNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2) HYDERABAD

In the result, the orders dated 09

ITTA/527/2006HC Telangana07 Jan 2025

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

Section 144Section 148Section 2Section 260Section 260ASection 53Section 54F

capital gains tax during the assessment year 1997 -98?" 3. Facts leading to hling of this appeal in nutshell are that the assessee is a Non Resident Indian (NRI). A notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued to her. In response to the said notice, assessee filed return of income on 27 .1

Sri Natakari Gopal vs. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and 2 Others

ITTA/238/2022HC Telangana18 Aug 2022

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 3Rd January, 2023. Appearance : Mr. Tilak Mita, Adv. ..For Appellant Mr. Pranit Bag , Adv. Mr. A. K. Mishra, Adv. Mr. Debdatta Saha, Adv. …For Respondent Re: Ga/1/2022 The Court:- Heard Mr. Tilak Mitra, Learned Advocate For The Appellant & Mr. Pranit Bag, Learned Advocate For The Respondent. There Is A Delay Of 1126 Days In Filing The Appeal. Though The Reasons Given In The Affidavit Are Not Convincing The Issues Involved In The Appeal Had Been Decided By This Court In Earlier Matters, This Court Exercises Discretion & Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal. Accordingly, The Application Is Allowed.

Section 10Section 10(38)Section 260A

1. Whether the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in ignoring the direct and circumstantial evidence brought on record by the Assessing Officer in the form of modus operandi contrived by accommodation entry providers to manipulate the share prices of Sulabh Engineering and Services Ltd. to enable the assessee to record fictitious Long Term Capital gain of Rs.1

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. Margadarshi Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd.,

The appeal is dismissed

ITTA/228/2013HC Telangana10 Jul 2013
Section 143Section 148Section 260Section 40

capitalized and depreciation was ordered to be charged on it. Rs.7650/- were added to the income of the assessee on account of telephone expenses, as the assessee admitted the expenditure incurred on account of telephones installed at residences. Further addition of Rs.2,00,000/- was made on account of sale of rice, as no stock was maintained by the assessee

The Commissioner of Income Tax -III vs. Sri T.C. Reddy

The appeal stands dismissed

ITTA/577/2011HC Telangana28 Feb 2012

capital of the company. This fact was brought to the notice of the assessee vide order sheet entry dated 29.12.2009. No satisfactory reply has been filed. It is therefore, disallowed from the revenue expenses claimed by the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s271(1)(c) r.w 274 of the Income-tax Act for concealment and furnishing of inaccurate particulars are initiated separately

M/s. Canara Securities Ltd vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax

ITTA/3/2020HC Telangana25 Aug 2020

Bench: M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO,T.AMARNATH GOUD

1 and 2 companies and certain other individuals as Directors of 4 listed companies, 3 subsidiaries of one listed company and an unlisted company is bad in law since the Joint APLs merely represents the estate of PDB and thus, had no rights to seek appointment of Directors in companies in which PDB was not a "Member". Further, without prejudice

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. M/s Omega Shelters Pvt Ltd

In the result, we do not find any merit in

ITTA/293/2013HC Telangana17 Jul 2013
Section 260Section 260A

1. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX C.R. BUILDINGS-III QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE-560001. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(2) BANGALORE. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. E.R. INDRAKUMAR, SR. COUNSEL A/W SRI. E.I. SANMATHI, ADV.,) AND: SHRI. V. MADHUSUDHAN REDDY (HUF) NO.502, CMH ROAD BANGALORE. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. ASHOK A. KULKARNI, ADV.) - - - THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. Shri Raaj Kumar Jain

ITTA/147/2013HC Telangana28 Jun 2013
For Appellant: - Sri Yug Mohit Chaudhary assistedFor Respondent: - A.G.A., Sri Amit Mishra, Sri Gyan
Section 156(3)Section 201Section 302Section 363Section 364Section 366Section 376

Capital) Appeal No. 1475 of 2009 corresponding to Reference No. 3 of 2009, by a co-ordinate bench of this Court on 11th September, 2009. The judgment of this Court in 'XYZ' has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. (s). 2227 of 2010, decided on 15.2.2011, with summary dismissal of appeal. 15. Separate and distinct trials

M/s Durga Granites, vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1,

ITTA/30/2023HC Telangana04 Sept 2023

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

1. 1. The State of Jharkhand, through its Secretary, Department of Industries, Mines and Geology, having its office at Yojna Bhawan, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi (Jharkhand), PIN 834 002. 2. The Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Jharkhand Mantralaya (Project Building), PO. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District Ranchi-834002 (Jharkhand), 3. The Director, Mines