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.

204 results for “capital gains”+ Block Assessmentclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai780Delhi544Chennai252Bangalore204Ahmedabad140Hyderabad134Jaipur134Kolkata99Chandigarh83Surat60Raipur56Indore48Nagpur45Pune35Guwahati25Lucknow20Ranchi18Visakhapatnam15Jodhpur11Patna9Rajkot8Allahabad8Amritsar8Cochin7Jabalpur7Dehradun5Varanasi5Panaji3Cuttack2Agra2

Key Topics

Addition to Income65Section 143(3)54Section 14847Disallowance44Section 25042Deduction32Section 153A29Section 133A25Section 80P24

SREENIVASULU SAGALETI,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2493/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuandshri.Keshav Dubeyassessment Year :2018-19

For Appellant: Shri. Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 54FSection 54F(1)Section 54F(4)

capital gain Page 2 of 16 of Rs.28,81,917/-. In this regard, assessee was asked to substantiate the claim of deduction under section 54F of the Act. Assessee furnished reply dated 10.10.2019 as under: ‘…….The entire sale proceedings is being invested in the construction of residential property of my spouse Smt. N. Mahalakshmi (PAN No. ASYPM9342F

Showing 1–20 of 204 · Page 1 of 11

...
Section 10A22
Section 6819
Capital Gains16

DIVYA DINESH ,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2194/BANG/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2026AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Sudheendra B.R, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, JCIT
Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 80G

Block, Jayanagar, Circle – 7(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 041. Bangalore. PAN – ALGPD 2314 R APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Sudheendra B.R, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Balusamy N, JCIT Date of hearing : 04.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement : .02.2026 O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This set of 2 appeal, filed at the instance of the assessee, is directed

DIVYA DINESH ,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2195/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2026AY 2021-22
Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 80G

Block, Jayanagar,\nBangalore - 560 041.\nAPPELLANT\nRESPONDENT\nPAN - ALGPD 2314 R\nAssessee by\nShri Sudheendra B.R, Advocate\nRevenue by\nShri Balusamy N, JCIT\nDate of hearing\n04.02.2026\nDate of Pronouncement\n.02.2026\nORDER\nPER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:\nThis set of 2 appeal, filed at the instance of the assessee, is\ndirected against the common order of the Learned Commissioner

NALAPAD PROPERTIES ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMER TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3) , BANGALORE

ITA 1297/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Aug 2024AY 2017-18
Section 139(9)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 250Section 45

block\nsituated in the stilt floor which is not saleable.\n13. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and delete any of the\ngrounds at the time of hearing.\nTotal tax effect Rs.58,47,78,202/-\nNow we will consider this appeal for adjudication.\n3.\nFacts of the issue are that the firm registered with Registrar\nof firms

NAVJYOTI SHARMA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT ASMNT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 235/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Varadarajan D.P., A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Divya K.J., D.R
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 45Section 54

assessment completed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act dated 12.12.2024, the assessee has filed the present appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee has also filed a paper book in support of his case. 5. Before us, the ld. A.R. of the assessee vehemently submitted that the assessee had sold his house property at Delhi on 07/09/2015 and also

SMT. BRIDGET ANTHONY(LEGAL HEIR OF LATE MR. ELEVATHINGAL JOSEPH ANTHONY),BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 509/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 250Section 69

Capital Gains’. After satisfying himself on the above issue, the assessing officer issued another notice u/s. 142(1) dated 25.11.2016 seeking details of deduction claimed u/s. 54B of the Act. The assessing officer has requested for approval of the Pr. CIT for converting the case from limited to complete scrutiny. The approval was communicated to assessing officer on 29.11.2016. However

MR. HOTHUR MOHAMMED TAUSEEF,BELLARY vs. DCIT-CIRCLE-1, BELLARY

ITA 1032/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2016-17 Shri Hothur Mohammed Tauseef, Sofia House, The Deputy Opp: State Bank Of Commissioner Of Mysore, Income Tax, Infantry Road, Circle – 1, Cantonment, Vs. Bellary. Bellary – 583 104. Pan: Acwpt0308C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri B.S. Balachandran, A.R. Revenue By : Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01-02-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-03-2023 Order Per Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri B.S. Balachandran, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 50CSection 50C(1)

capital gain on sale of industrial land at Halkundi Village, Bellary and was added back amount of Rs.97,77,387/-. c. on unexplained cash deposit amounting to Rs. 40 Lakhs Aggrieved, assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). After considering the submission of the assessee, the CIT(A) upheld the order of the AO. Being aggrieved, assessee filed

M/S. CONCORDE HOUSING CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 531/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R
Section 132Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

capital gain then none of the conditions as prescribed under clause (a) & (b) are satisfied so as to bring the case of the assessee in the mischief of Explanation 5A to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Harjeev Aggarwal (supra), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court while considering the definition

SHRI. KEMPAREDDY GOVINDRAJ,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BENGALURU

In the result the appeals of the assessee in ITA No’s 1022 to \n1024/ Bang/ 2024, for the

ITA 1021/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri. V. Chandrasekhar, ARFor Respondent: Shri. Sridhar E, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 131(1)Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250

block assessment under \nsection 153A and in case of unabated/completed assessment and \nin case no incriminating material is found during the search, the \npower of the Revenue to have the reassessment under sections \n147/148 of the Act has to be saved, otherwise the Revenue would \nbe left without remedy. \n\nThe Hon’ble Supreme Court, in summarizing its decision

VINOD PRASAD INJETI ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, we reverse the orders of the ld

ITA 1252/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Smt. Jyothi Anumolu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234A

Block, Ward 2(3)(3), Pramuk Temple Meadows, No.3, Bangalore. 27th Cross, Banashankari 2nd Stage, Bangalore – 560 070. PAN: AAOPI 4322D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Smt. Jyothi Anumolu, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel. Date of hearing : 13.11.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 22.11.2024 O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, Vice President 1. This appeal is filed

SRI. MARUTHIVANDITH REDDY MANNUR,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 835/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jun 2024AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 115BSection 132Section 132(4)Section 234ASection 69A

block assessment can be\nframed only on the basis of a statement recorded under Section 132(4)\nis accepted, it would result in ignoring an important check on the power\nof the AO and would expose assessees to arbitrary assessments based\nonly on the statements, which we are conscious are sometimes extracted\nby exerting undue influence or by coercion. Sometimes

SRI. MARUTHIVANDITH REDDY MANNUR,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 836/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jun 2024AY 2018-19
Section 115BSection 132Section 132(4)Section 234A

block assessment can be\nframed only on the basis of a statement recorded under Section 132(4)\nis accepted, it would result in ignoring an important check on the power\nof the AO and would expose assessees to arbitrary assessments based\nonly on the statements, which we are conscious are sometimes extracted\nby exerting undue influence or by coercion. Sometimes

CISCO SYSTEMS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 2, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 1234/BANG/2025[AY 2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 37(1)

capital creditors. 15.1 Before examining the merits of the rival contentions, it is necessary to briefly advert to the statutory architecture of faceless assessment. Under section 144B of the Act, the assessment proceedings are conducted through the National Faceless Assessment Centre, which may assign different functions to specialized units, namely the Assessment Unit, Verification Unit, Technical Unit and Review Unit

SHRI. SUNIL KUMAR JALAN,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 6(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 337/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Shri Sunil Kumar Jalan Vs The Income Tax Officer - 6(3)(1) No.703, 7Th Floor, Ebony Bmtc Building, 80Ft Road A Wing, Godrej Woods Apts 6Th Block, Koramangla Near Hebbal Flyover Bengaluru 560095 Bangalore 560024 Pan – Acdpj0966D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P.K. Prasad, Advocate Revenue By: Dr. Sankar Ganesh K., Addl. Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.02.2023 O R D E R Per: George George K., J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Cit(A)’S Order Dated 25.11.2019. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2014-15. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: - The Assessee Is An Individual Engaged In Granite Business. For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15 Return Of Income Was Filed On 28.11.2014 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.13,52,370/- Consisting Of Income From House Property, Capital Gains & Business Income. The Assessment Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Was Issued On 18.09.2015. The Assessee’S Ar Attended Hearing On 30.12.2016 & 2 Shri Sunil Kumar Jalan Produced The Books Of Accounts & Other Details. The Assessing Officer (Ao) Concluded The Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Vide Order Dated 30.12.2016 Making The Following Addition: -

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Prasad, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sankar Ganesh K., Addl. CIT-DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144

Block, Koramangla Near Hebbal Flyover Bengaluru 560095 Bangalore 560024 PAN – ACDPJ0966D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri P.K. Prasad, Advocate Revenue by: Dr. Sankar Ganesh K., Addl. CIT-DR Date of hearing: 23.02.2023 Date of pronouncement: 28.02.2023 O R D E R Per: George George K., J.M. This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against

MOHAMMED IBRAHIM MOHIDEEN,KERALA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, MANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 464/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 153ASection 69B

capital gains is intended to tax the gains of assessee not what an assessee might have gained and what is not gained cannot be computed as gain and the assessee cannot fastened with the liability on a fictional income. Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Shivakami

MOHAMMED IBRAHIM MOHIDEEN,KERALA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , MANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 466/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 153ASection 69B

capital gains is intended to tax the gains of assessee not what an assessee might have gained and what is not gained cannot be computed as gain and the assessee cannot fastened with the liability on a fictional income. Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Shivakami

MOHAMMED IBRABIM MOHIDEEN ,KERALA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 486/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 153ASection 69B

capital gains is intended to tax the gains of assessee not what an assessee might have gained and what is not gained cannot be computed as gain and the assessee cannot fastened with the liability on a fictional income. Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Shivakami

MOHAMMED IBRAHIM MOHIDEEN,KERALA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , MANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 463/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 153ASection 69B

capital gains is intended to tax the gains of assessee not what an assessee might have gained and what is not gained cannot be computed as gain and the assessee cannot fastened with the liability on a fictional income. Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Shivakami

SHRI. ANANTULA VIJAY MOHAN ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

ITA 2060/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu\Nand\Nshri Keshav Dubey\Nita Nos.2059 & 2060/Bang/2024\N Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18\Nanantula Vijay Mohan\N9, Banjara Avenue Road\Nno.1, Banjara Hills\Nhyderabad 500 034\Npan No: Aelpm6515K\Nappellant\Nvs.\Nvs.\Ndcit\Ncircle-6(1)(1)\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nsp No.67/Bang/2024\N(Arising Out Of Ita No.2060/Bang/2024)\N Assessment Year: 2017-18\Nanantula Vijay Mohan\N9, Banjara Avenue Road\Nno.1, Banjara Hills\Nhyderabad 500 034\Npan No: Aelpm6515K\Nappellant\Ndcit\Ncircle-6(1)(1)\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nappellant By\Nrespondent By\Nsri Padma Khincha, A.R.\Nsri Sridhar E., D.R.\Ndate Of Hearing\N: 18.02.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement: 07.05.2025\Norder\Nper Laxmi Prasad Sahu:\Nthese Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed\Nagainst The Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Both Dated 23.09.2024\Nvide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1068988279(1)\Nfor The Assessment Year 2016-17 & Vide Din & Order\Nno.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1068999127(1) For The Assessment\Nyear 2017-18 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short\N'The Act'). Since Both These Appeals & The Stay Petition Are Of The\Nsame Assessee For The Different Assessment Years, These Are Clubbed\Ntogether, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For\Nthe Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.\Nita No.2059/Bang/2024 (Ay 2016-17):\N2. First, We Take Up Ita No.2059/Bang/2024 For The Ay 2016-\N17 Wherein The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:\N1. General\N1.

Section 143(3)Section 250

capital gain by the assessee.\n9.\nWe have heard the rival submissions and perused the\nmaterials available on record. It is undisputed fact that the case of\nthe assessee was selected for limited scrutiny under the CASS by\nissuing notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 4.7.2017 which are\nreproduced below for the sake of convenience and brevity:\nभारत

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BENGALURU vs. BAGALUR KRISHNAIAH SETTY VIJAY SHANKER, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1174/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2024AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Ravi Shankar S.V., AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT-DR
Section 54

Block\nKoramangala\nBangalore 560034\n(Appellant)\nVS.\nBagalur Krishnaiah Shetty Vijay\nShanker\nNo. 356, 9th Main, 4th Cross\n4th Phase, Dollars Layout\nJ.P. Nagar, Bengaluru\nPAN – AAJPV0029K\n(Respondent)\nAssessee by: Shri Ravi Shankar S.V., Advocate\nRevenue by: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT-DR\nDate of hearing: 17.10.2024\nDate of pronouncement: 21.10.2024\nORDER\nPer: Padmavathy S., A.M.\nThis appeal