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.

11 results for “capital gains”+ Section 148(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,047Delhi1,561Chennai601Jaipur589Bangalore573Ahmedabad519Hyderabad427Kolkata418Surat372Pune316Chandigarh245Indore236Cochin186Karnataka174Visakhapatnam163Agra106Nagpur99Raipur95Rajkot94Amritsar80Lucknow80Calcutta60Panaji54Patna46Guwahati42Jabalpur28Jodhpur25Ranchi24Cuttack19SC19Dehradun17Allahabad14Telangana11Varanasi6Kerala5Rajasthan4Punjab & Haryana2Orissa2Andhra Pradesh2K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 260A7Section 54F7Section 1473Section 143(3)3Section 1483Section 2603Capital Gains3Addition to Income3Section 10(38)2

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

2 that the appellant is liable to 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

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

Section 153A2
Long Term Capital Gains2
Exemption2
ITTA/3/2020HC Telangana25 Aug 2020

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

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.Madhu Enterprises

ITTA/127/2025HC Telangana12 Feb 2025

Bench: The Learned

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 260ASection 54F

2 of 10 Act. 3. The subject matter of controversy in the appeals before the learned ITAT centres around the Assessee’s claim for deduction under Section 54F of the Act. 4. The Assessee filed her return of income for AY 2011-12 on 31.12.2011, declaring an income of ₹70,87,301/-. The Assessee also claimed a deduction

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

2 were completed and addition of Rs.1,01,016/- was made and keeping in view the provisions of Section 40 (a) (ia) of the Act 1961 payment of Rs.1,01,016/- made to Satake India Engg (P) Ltd on account of AMC was disallowed. Further Rs.56,650/- incurred on purchase of UPS held to be capitalized and depreciation was ordered

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

section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] is directed against the order dated 15.2.2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “B” Bench, Kolkata [Tribunal] in ITA No.2467/Kol/2017 for the assessment year 2014-15 the revenue has raised the following substantial question of law for consideration : 2 1. Whether the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred

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 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

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s.Globe Organics Ltd

Appeal is dismissed

ITTA/585/2006HC Telangana24 Apr 2012

Bench: V.ESWARAIAH,K.G.SHANKAR

Section 260A

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, has been filed against the order dated 07.04.2006 (Annexure A-3) passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh, whereby appeal filed by the revenue-respondent against the order dated 22.03.2000 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Chandigarh, has been partly accepted. Brief facts of the case are that

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

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

2 (ii) SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER OF THE ITAT, 'A' BENCH, BANGALORE IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS ITA NO.149/BANG/2011 DATED 8.2.2013, AS SOUGHT FOR IN THIS APPEAL. THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short

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

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 Directorate, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Yojna 2025:JHHC:29619-DB 52 Bhawan, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi-8334002 (Jharkhand), ........... Respondents. ----- With