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.

322 results for “capital gains”+ Section 120(4)(b)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai713Delhi692Bangalore322Chennai169Ahmedabad144Chandigarh144Jaipur142Kolkata140Karnataka125Pune100Cochin89Hyderabad85Indore64Calcutta52Surat46Raipur44Cuttack42Visakhapatnam33Lucknow25Guwahati17Rajkot17Telangana9Agra8SC8Amritsar8Nagpur7Panaji5Varanasi5Patna3Rajasthan3Jabalpur2Dehradun2Jodhpur1Kerala1Andhra Pradesh1Allahabad1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1

Key Topics

Addition to Income62Section 143(3)54Section 201(1)50Section 20134Section 1032Section 153A31Section 19228Section 14824TDS23Section 132

SMT. SAVITRI KADUR,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed to the extent indicated above

ITA 1700/BANG/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 2(47)Section 45Section 54E

120 ITR 49 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has explained the nature of distribution of Page 8 of 23 assets of a partnership on dissolution amongst its partners and as to whether such distribution of assets would constitute transfer within the meaning of section 2(47) of the Income-tax Act as follows : "A partnership firm under the Indian

SUNITA MADHOK ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), , BANGALORE

Showing 1–20 of 322 · Page 1 of 17

...
22
Deduction20
Survey u/s 133A20

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 554/BANG/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H.N. Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Smt. H. Kabila, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 234BSection 69

120 of the Act. We therefore hold that the concurrent jurisdiction of the assessee is with ACIT, Circle 1(2)(1) at the time of reopening of the assessment on 9.12.2014. The argument of the ld. AR is not in accordance with the provisions of section ITA Nos.554 & 555/Bang/2018 Page 28 of 64 124(5) r.w.s

SUNITA MADHOK ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 555/BANG/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H.N. Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Smt. H. Kabila, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 234BSection 69

120 of the Act. We therefore hold that the concurrent jurisdiction of the assessee is with ACIT, Circle 1(2)(1) at the time of reopening of the assessment on 9.12.2014. The argument of the ld. AR is not in accordance with the provisions of section ITA Nos.554 & 555/Bang/2018 Page 28 of 64 124(5) r.w.s

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S. R. MUNIRAJU (HUF), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the revenue and the CO by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 54/BANG/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 153C

120 (2011) (Kar), capital gains arises at the time of execution of Joint Development Agreement, when possession of property is handed over to the Developer due to the concept of Part Performance. The judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of M/s. Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia vs CIT (2003) 260 ITR 491 has been relied upon

TYCO FIRE AND SECURITY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 270/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.270/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Acit, M/S. Tyco Fire & Security India Private Limited, Vs. D-601, Rmz Centennial, Circle - 7(1)(1), Kundalahalli Main Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 0087 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Rajan Vora, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 27/11.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Rajan Vora, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)

B of business transfer agreement The Seller and the Purchaser have also entered into a debenture subscription agreement dated 9 June 2015, a copy whereof is attached as Annex 6 (DSA) pursuant to which the Seller has invested an amount of INR 550,000,000 in the Purchaser with the understanding that INR 120,000,000 out of such amount

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2374/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep, Advocate &
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 68Section 69C

capital gains as the commission paid u/s 69C of the Act. 23. The appellant denies the liabilities for interest u/s 234B & 234C of the Act. Further prays that the interest if any should be levied only on returned income. 24. The appellant denies the liability for interest u/s 234D of the Act. The levy of interest u/s 234D is against

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2373/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep, Advocate &
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 68Section 69C

capital gains as the commission paid u/s 69C of the Act. 23. The appellant denies the liabilities for interest u/s 234B & 234C of the Act. Further prays that the interest if any should be levied only on returned income. 24. The appellant denies the liability for interest u/s 234D of the Act. The levy of interest u/s 234D is against

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2376/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep, Advocate &
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 68Section 69C

capital gains as the commission paid u/s 69C of the Act. 23. The appellant denies the liabilities for interest u/s 234B & 234C of the Act. Further prays that the interest if any should be levied only on returned income. 24. The appellant denies the liability for interest u/s 234D of the Act. The levy of interest u/s 234D is against

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2375/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep, Advocate &
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 68Section 69C

capital gains as the commission paid u/s 69C of the Act. 23. The appellant denies the liabilities for interest u/s 234B & 234C of the Act. Further prays that the interest if any should be levied only on returned income. 24. The appellant denies the liability for interest u/s 234D of the Act. The levy of interest u/s 234D is against

TREE HILL ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1395/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

4 of 20 goodwill, was discharged by the firm. It is submitted that the following amounts were due to the assessee at the time of retirement:- Particulars Amount (Rs) a) Initial capital contribution 20,00,00,000 Current account balance as on 01.04.2012 15,10,45,344 b) c) Interest payable on unsecured loan 7,13,94,521 d) Share

HANCHIPURA CHANNAIAH NANDAKISHORE,MAHALKSHMIPURAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD INTL, TAXATION 1(2) BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 258/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyit(It)A No.258/Bang/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Hanchipura Channaiah Nandakishore 87, 2Nd Stage & Phase Mahalakshmipuram 2Nd Stage, 14Th Main, West Of Chord Ito Road Vs. Ward International Taxation 1(2) Mahalakshmipuram Bangalore Bangalore 560 086 Pan No :Blrpn0428A Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Siddesh N Gaddi, A.R. Respondent By : Dr. Divya K.J., D.R. Date Of Hearing : 07.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.11.2025

For Appellant: Sri Siddesh N Gaddi, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Divya K.J., D.R
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 54Section 54(2)Section 80T

120 ITR 461 where it has been held that the word ‘purchase’ occurring in section 54(1) of the Act had to be given its common meaning, viz., buy for a price or equivalent of price by payment in kind or adjustment towards a debt or for other monetary consideration. Each release in this case was a transfer

EPSILON ADVISORS P. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. CIT, BANGALORE

In the result, penalty appeal of the assessee is allowed and penalty appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1607/BANG/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

For Appellant: Shri S. Parthasarathi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Arvind, Standing Counsel
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271

120 4,00,00,000 reconsidered 125,56,19,475 Less : Depreciation allowable u/s. 3,750 32(1) (As per statement enclosed) Profit on sale of investments 122,09,92,716 122,09,96,466 3,46,23,009 Taxable Income from Business 3,46,23,009 Capital Gain/ Loss 1. Long Term Capital Gain on sale of investments Sales

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S EPSILON ADVISORS PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, penalty appeal of the assessee is allowed and penalty appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1600/BANG/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

For Appellant: Shri S. Parthasarathi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Arvind, Standing Counsel
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271

120 4,00,00,000 reconsidered 125,56,19,475 Less : Depreciation allowable u/s. 3,750 32(1) (As per statement enclosed) Profit on sale of investments 122,09,92,716 122,09,96,466 3,46,23,009 Taxable Income from Business 3,46,23,009 Capital Gain/ Loss 1. Long Term Capital Gain on sale of investments Sales

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S EPSILON ADVISORS PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, penalty appeal of the assessee is allowed and penalty appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1569/BANG/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

For Appellant: Shri S. Parthasarathi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Arvind, Standing Counsel
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271

120 4,00,00,000 reconsidered 125,56,19,475 Less : Depreciation allowable u/s. 3,750 32(1) (As per statement enclosed) Profit on sale of investments 122,09,92,716 122,09,96,466 3,46,23,009 Taxable Income from Business 3,46,23,009 Capital Gain/ Loss 1. Long Term Capital Gain on sale of investments Sales

EPSILON ADVISORS P. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. CIT, BANGALORE

In the result, penalty appeal of the assessee is allowed and penalty appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1608/BANG/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

For Appellant: Shri S. Parthasarathi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Arvind, Standing Counsel
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271

120 4,00,00,000 reconsidered 125,56,19,475 Less : Depreciation allowable u/s. 3,750 32(1) (As per statement enclosed) Profit on sale of investments 122,09,92,716 122,09,96,466 3,46,23,009 Taxable Income from Business 3,46,23,009 Capital Gain/ Loss 1. Long Term Capital Gain on sale of investments Sales

ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. SHRI. M.R. ANANDARAM (HUF), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue and the Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1169/BANG/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A.K. Garodia

For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT-III(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(14)

120 (Kar.), the capital gain has to be charged on transfer of the land to the developer. He further contended that once the consideration was received and possession was handed over to the developer, transfer of the immovable property takes place and the capital gain has to be charged on the assessee. 6. Having carefully examined the orders of lower

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

b) Paid purchase consideration Rs.21,26,423/- for purchase of immovable property to Bhartiya Urban Private Limited. After obtaining the prior approval of the CIT (Intl. Taxation), Bengaluru on 29/03/2023, the order u/s. 148A(d)of the Act along with the notice u/s. 148 of the Act were served to the assessee. In response to notice

BELLANDUR CHIKKAGURAPPA JAYARAMREDDY,BENGALURU vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE 4(3)(1), BENGALURU

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1322/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri S. Parthasarathi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 2(47)(v)Section 234BSection 50C

section 50C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act] which was introduced w.e.f. AY 2007-08 was applicable retrospectively for AY 2014-15 when the language used in the proviso does not indicate that it was inserted as a clarification. Page 4 of 29 4. The facts of the case are that the assessee, an individual, for the impugned

INDIANOIL SKYTANKING PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 407/BANG/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 80Section 80I

capital expenditure debited to the profit and loss account during the AY 2015-16. 14. The CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that the treatment provided by the Assessee was consistent with the Accounting Standard (AS) applicable for maintenance of accounts. 15. Without prejudice to the above, alternatively, the CIT(A) erred in not allowing

M/S. INDIANOIL SKYTAKING PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 299/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 80Section 80I

capital expenditure debited to the profit and loss account during the AY 2015-16. 14. The CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that the treatment provided by the Assessee was consistent with the Accounting Standard (AS) applicable for maintenance of accounts. 15. Without prejudice to the above, alternatively, the CIT(A) erred in not allowing