Section 115BBDA of the Income Tax Act

The decision most relied on for Section 115BBDA is PCIT v. Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd. (157 Taxmann.com 584), cited in 6 of the 37 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 115BBDA

Judgments on Section 115BBDA

Indu Maheshwari, Jaipur vs. Circle 19(1), Mumbai, DCIT-CPC

In the result, Ground No.1 raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 715/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Indu Maheshwari Circle 19(1), Mumbai Shilpam, 20-A, Janpath Shyam Dcit-Cpc Nagar, Jaipur- 302019 Vs. Rajasthan (Pan: Abopm6419N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Atharv Mundra, Ca Revenue : Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.12.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Addl/Jcit (A)-2, Bengaluru, Vide Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2024- 25/1071060919(1), Dated 10.12.2024 Passed Against The Intimation Issued By Centralized Processing Center, By Dcit, Bengaluru (Cpc), U/S. 143(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 13.03.2019 For Ay 2017-18. 2. Grounds Taken By Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: 1. In Law & In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Has Grossly Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 34,34,698/- Made By Ld. Ao Treating As Dividend U/S. 10 (34) Of It Act. However Appellant Earned Income From Mutual Fund Which Is Exempt U/S. 10(35) Of It Act. 2. In Law & In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Has Grossly Erred In Confirming The 2 Indu Maheshwari Ay 2017-18 Addition Of Rs. 3,79,894/- Made By Ld. Ao For Not Allowing Of Loss Of Capital Gain.

For Appellant: Shri Atharv Mundra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 10(34)Section 10(35)Section 115BSection 143(1)

Pramode Kumar Himatsingka, L/H of Gita Devi Himatsingka (Since Deceased), Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 30(1), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 737/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.737/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Gita Devi Himatsingka (Since Deceased) Represented By L/H Pramode Kumar Himatsingka…………….………..……..…………………....Appellant 2C, Queens Park, Ballygunge, Kol-19. [Pan: Aarph3735N] Vs. Ito, Ward-30(1), Kolkata…………....…..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ranu Biswas, Acit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 30, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 31, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By Shri Pramod Kumar Himatsingka, Legal Heir Of Smt. Geeta Devi Himatsingka (Deceased), Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Dated 19.02.2025, Confirming The Rectification Order Passed Under Section 154 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961, Dated 30.10.2019, By The Cpc, Bangalore, For The Assessment Year 2018–19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual Who Filed The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2018-19, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.30,51,986/-. The Return Was Processed Under Section 143(1) Of The Income-Tax Act On 07.12.2018 & A Refund Of Rs.40,800/- Was Determined & Granted To The Assessee. Subsequently, The Cpc Passed A Rectification Order Dated 30.10.19 By

Section 10(35)Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 154