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.

3 results for “capital gains”+ Section 68clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,823Delhi2,144Bangalore881Kolkata581Chennai554Ahmedabad466Jaipur400Hyderabad266Pune171Chandigarh158Indore150Nagpur103Cochin90Raipur87Surat76Lucknow69Rajkot47Amritsar43Calcutta42Guwahati37Visakhapatnam34Panaji29SC23Jodhpur22Cuttack21Patna19Ranchi19Karnataka15Allahabad12Dehradun10Agra10Jabalpur10Rajasthan8Kerala7Telangana3ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Andhra Pradesh1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1Gauhati1Orissa1

Key Topics

Section 1O3Section 2602

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOMEE TAX-III vs. M/S.V.B.C.FERRO ALLOYS LTD

THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED

ITTA/506/2006HC Telangana15 Oct 2024

Bench: SUJOY PAUL,NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

For Appellant: Sri J.V. prasad (Sr. SC FOR TNCOME TAX)For Respondent: Sri Challa Gunaranjan
Section 1Section 1OSection 260

section' 1O(23G) initially it was part of the sectron. The exemption relates to po$'er generation under the long term capital gains, u,hich include infrastructure facilities. In the said circumstalces. if Assesment Officer exempted the assessee and no provision was altered. Hence, this is also not applicabie to present case. 20. Learned counsel for the respondent relied upon

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX III, vs. M/S. SAVIJANA SEA FOODS PVT. LTD.,

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITTA/55/2010HC Telangana20 Dec 2024

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

Section 260

gains‟ in their hands in their returns would not be relevant in deciding the issue whether the payment by the Assessee should be treated as „business expenditure.‟ As explained by the Madras High Court in CIT v. Sarda Binding Works 102 ITR 187 (Mad), it is the point of view of the payer which is relevant. 37. The decision

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

68 M/s. Rohini Stone Quarry (A Proprietorship concern), having its works at Mouza and Village Sarasdangal, P.O. and P.S. Shikaripara, District Dumkar, PIN 816103. (Jharkhand), through its Proprietor, namely Mithun Ansari, aged about 33 years, son of Islam Ansari, resident of village Sarasdangal, P.O. and P.S. Shikaripara, District Dumkar, PIN 816103, (Jharkhand). ..........Petitioner. -Versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand, through