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.

4 results for “capital gains”+ Section 32(1)(iia)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai161Delhi99Ahmedabad64Chennai57Chandigarh50Kolkata35Raipur34Cochin33Bangalore25Nagpur16Pune15Hyderabad14Indore10Jaipur10Cuttack9Guwahati8Agra4Lucknow4Visakhapatnam4Telangana3SC2Karnataka2Jodhpur1Rajkot1

Key Topics

Addition to Income4Section 133A3Section 103Section 113Section 2(24)3Section 14A3Exemption3Survey u/s 133A3Section 143(3)

ACIT,, VIJAYAWADA vs. SRI PRAKASH EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, TUNI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue for the

ITA 465/VIZ/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri T. Satyanandam, DR
Section 10Section 11Section 133ASection 2(24)

iia) of the act. Respectfully following the view taken by the ITAT, Bangalore, we hold that the donations received for specific purpose of acquiring the capital assets are tied up grants and cannot be treated as income u/s 2(24)(ii)(a) of I.T. Act. Accordingly, we set aside the orders of the lower authorities and allow the appeal

ACIT, EXEMPTIONS,, VIJAYAWADA vs. SRI PRAKASHA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,, TUNII

2

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue for the

ITA 467/VIZ/2017[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Mar 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri T. Satyanandam, DR
Section 10Section 11Section 133ASection 2(24)

iia) of the act. Respectfully following the view taken by the ITAT, Bangalore, we hold that the donations received for specific purpose of acquiring the capital assets are tied up grants and cannot be treated as income u/s 2(24)(ii)(a) of I.T. Act. Accordingly, we set aside the orders of the lower authorities and allow the appeal

ACIT, (EXEMPTIONS), EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE,, VIJAYAWADA vs. SRI PRAKASH EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,, TUNI,

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue for the

ITA 382/VIZ/2017[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Mar 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri T. Satyanandam, DR
Section 10Section 11Section 133ASection 2(24)

iia) of the act. Respectfully following the view taken by the ITAT, Bangalore, we hold that the donations received for specific purpose of acquiring the capital assets are tied up grants and cannot be treated as income u/s 2(24)(ii)(a) of I.T. Act. Accordingly, we set aside the orders of the lower authorities and allow the appeal

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, , ELURU vs. THE ANDHRA SUGARS LIMITED, TANUKU

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 380/VIZ/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 380/Viz/2019 (धनिाारणिर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Andhra Sugars Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-1, Tanuku. Eluru. Pan: Aaact6357Q (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) सी.ओ सं. / C.O. No. 140/Viz/2019 [आयक अपील सं. से उत्पन्न / Arising Out Of I.T.A. No. 380/Viz/2019(A.Y. 2012-13)] M/S. Andhra Sugars Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Tanuku. Income Tax, Circle-1, Pan: Aaact6357Q Eluru. अपीलार्थीकीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri C. Subrahmanyam, Ca प्रत्यार्थीकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr.Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri C. Subrahmanyam, CAFor Respondent: Dr.Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80I

Section 32(1)(iia) has, therefore, been rightly granted to the assessee by the concurrent judgments of the CIT(A) and the Tribunal.” Hence, in our considered opinion, the assessee is entitled for additional depreciation U/s. 32(1)(iia) of the Act on the machinery involved in wind power division. We therefore find no infirmity in the order