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.

7 results for “capital gains”+ Set Off of Lossesclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai3,671Delhi2,512Bangalore1,100Chennai965Kolkata839Ahmedabad568Jaipur405Hyderabad301Pune192Chandigarh170Indore145Raipur110Nagpur94Cochin94Lucknow87Surat74Rajkot64SC61Visakhapatnam41Amritsar37Calcutta35Guwahati30Cuttack30Karnataka28Patna26Jodhpur24Agra18Dehradun17Jabalpur13Kerala11Ranchi8Panaji8Orissa7Telangana7Varanasi5Rajasthan4Allahabad4Punjab & Haryana3K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Himachal Pradesh1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 2607Section 54F3Section 1O3Addition to Income3Capital Gains3Section 260A2Exemption2Deduction2

M/S. VJIL CONSULTING LTD., vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -3(2), HYDERABAD

Appeal is allowed

ITTA/53/2009HC Telangana31 Jul 2025

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,S.CHALAPATHI RAO

Section 115JSection 260

capital gains should be included in the profit and loss account for the purpose of computing book profit. 7. The learned Counsel further places reliance on the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of ‘C.I.T. Vs. HCL COMNET SYSTEMS AND SERVICES LIMITED’ reported in 2008 [305] ITR 409 and the Judgment of the Calcutta High Court

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

set aside u h.at Parliament deems to haue been a ju.dicial error, u,hetLer it the statement of the common l.atu or '1zoor1s scc +9 ;&*i 11) l0 in the interpretation of statutes. Usuallg, if not inuariablg, such an Act contains a preamble, aftd also the word "declared" as uell as the Luord "enacted

M/S.R.S.RANGADAS vs. THE ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are disposed of, with no order as to costs

ITTA/406/2005HC Telangana19 Oct 2022

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

Section 2(47)Section 271(1)(c)Section 45(1)Section 48Section 54F

loss. 8. Assessment Order records that to investigate, whether this was a case of legitimate tax planning or tax evasion and whether the transaction was genuine, notices under Section 131 of the Act were issued to NIIT. Further, investigation had revealed that the assessee had lodged 76,000 and 24,000 equity shares statedly sold to M/s GIPL on 14th

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, they should be treated as capital expenditure in the hands of the Assessee, was not based on sound reasoning. (iv) Expenditure on purchase of stock and trade is charged to the P&L and trading account at the time of purchase, which cannot be deferred. The observation of the AO that the Appellant was free to claim the deduction

AVANTI FEEDS LTD., vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX

The appeal is dismissed, and the stay petition

ITTA/56/2011HC Telangana06 Jan 2026

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

Section 260A

set aside the order of CIT(A) by allowing the appeal of the assessee without appreciating the vital fact that the assessee entered into such transactions of purchase and sale 2 of penny stocks i.e. BLUE CIRCLE & CCL INTERNATIONAL featuring in the list of ‘Bogus Capital Loss Claims’ information data provided by the Directorate of Investigation, Kolkata? ii. Whether

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/s. Sanghi Textiles Limited

The appeal is allowed setting aside

ITTA/551/2010HC Telangana30 Jan 2026

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

For Respondent: sri G.v.Ambeshwar, counser representing
Section 260A

losses incurred during the first two years of its operation f management. Thus, the learned Senior Standing counsel, in the backdrop of the above factual matrix, contends that the receipt of Rs.4.6o crores paid towards running of the company is to be treated. as under revenue account and the assessing officer has rightly brought the said amount of Rs.4.60 crores

Kuchipudi Krishna Kishore vs. The DCIT

Accordingly the appeals deserves to be allowed by setting aside the impugned

ITTA/291/2007HC Telangana03 May 2024

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,N.TUKARAMJI

For Appellant: SRI A.V.A. SIVA KARTIKEYA on behalf ofFor Respondent: SRI ARVIND rep Ms. SUNDARI R PISUPATI
Section 260

loss from one head against the income from and other head assessable in that year situation, the deduction should have been allowed' 8(c) In support, relied on the authority of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commisslo ner of lncome Tax' West Bengat-lll v. Raghunandan Prasad Moody - fig7B) 115 ITR 51g (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court while