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.

4 results for “capital gains”+ Section 482clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi222Mumbai154Bangalore98Chennai59Chandigarh49Jaipur32Ahmedabad30Kolkata26Indore20Lucknow12Hyderabad11Karnataka8Pune6SC6Telangana4Ranchi4Rajkot4Visakhapatnam1Andhra Pradesh1Dehradun1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1Nagpur1Raipur1Rajasthan1Agra1

Key Topics

Section 9(1)(vi)5Section 260A3Section 2763Section 143(3)2Section 1312Double Taxation/DTAA2Long Term Capital Gains2Search & Seizure2

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Supriya Wines

ITTA/591/2017HC Telangana07 Nov 2017

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

Section 131Section 132(1)Section 276Section 276C(1)

Capital Gain has been fraudulently enjoyed by the petitioners that is why the complaint has been filed. He submits that once criminal case is filed even subsequently if penalty is set aside by the appellate authority, criminal case cannot be quashed. He relied in the case of S.J. Surya Vs.The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle,-II (4), Chennai

PRL COMMR OF INCOME TAX-2, HYDERABAD vs. K RAVINDER REDDY, HYDERABAD

In the result, this Cr.M.P

ITTA/590/2017HC Telangana
23 Aug 2018

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

Section 271(1)(c)Section 276Section 482

482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with a prayer to quash/set aside the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 10.11.2016 passed by the learned Special Sub-Judge-VII, Economic Offence, Ranchi in Complaint Case No.08 of 2016/Eco.Off. Case No.8 of 2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 276C (1), 277 and 278E of the Income

The Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. Laila Impex,

Accordingly answered against the Revenue. The appeals fail and are dismissed, without

ITTA/473/2012HC Telangana09 Jul 2013
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 260ASection 9(1)(vi)

Capital gains") for— (i) the transfer of all or any rights (including the granting of a licence) in respect of a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade mark or similar property ; (ii) the imparting of any information concerning the working of, or the use of, a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade

PR COMMR OF INCOME TAX-2, HYDERABAD vs. K RAVINDER REDDY, HYDERABAD

ITTA/621/2017HC Telangana23 Aug 2018

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

Section 260A

482 (SC). 29. It is submitted that ITAT erred in attributing as high as 35% of the profits to the alleged sales function performed in India. As submitted earlier, research and development, design, fabrication and manufacture of equipments all took place outside India. It is also undisputed that title to the goods passes of the Indian customers outside India