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.

12 results for “capital gains”+ Section 12A(1)(ac)clear

Sorted by relevance

Calcutta34Delhi32Hyderabad21Kolkata13Bangalore12Pune9Ahmedabad7Raipur7Agra6Chennai6Indore6Mumbai5Telangana3Cochin3Rajkot3SC2Jaipur2Lucknow2Dehradun1

Key Topics

Section 80G40Section 12A26Section 2(15)21Section 1115Section 214Exemption12Section 143(2)7Addition to Income7Section 80G(5)4

M/S. VIJAYANAGAR EDUCATIONAL TRUST,BENGALURU vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), BENGALURU

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2006/BANG/2019[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Hariprasad Nayak, CAFor Respondent: Shri Murali Mohan, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11Section 115TSection 12ASection 13Section 133A

Ac have different wordings wherein the provisions of sub-section(3) used “shall”, whereas the provisions of sub-section (4) uses the word “may”. He further submitted that cancellation of the registration results into serious consequences which is penal in nature and therefore discretion is confirmed which should be used on the basis of strong evidence and not merely

Section 11(1)(a)4
Charitable Trust2

ACADEMY OF GENERAL EDUCATION,UDUPI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 716/BANG/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jun 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: Na

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Shivanand Kalakeri, D.R
Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)

ac) of sub- section (1) of section 12A of the Act vide Unique Registration No. (URN) AAATA2976PE20214 dated 04.04.2022 from Assessment Year 2022-23 to the Assessment Year 2026-27. We are of the considered opinion that the registration u/s 12A must have been granted only after the ld. CIT(Exemptions) calling for the document/information from the trust in order

ACADEMY OF LIBERAL EDUCATION REGD ,SULLIA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 717/BANG/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jun 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: Na

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Shivanand Kalakeri, D.R
Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)

ac) of sub- section (1) of section 12A of the Act vide Unique Registration No. (URN) AAATA2239BE20213 dated 04.04.2022 from Assessment Year 2022-23 to the Assessment Year 2026-27. We are of the considered opinion that the registration u/s 12A must have been granted only after the ld. CIT(Exemptions) calling for the document/information from the trust in order

DR. T M A PAI FOUNDATION ,UDUPI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 712/BANG/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jun 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: Na

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Shivanand Kalakeri, D.R
Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)

ac) of sub- section (1) of section 12A of the Act vide Unique registration No. (URN) AAATD1327ME20211 dated 05.04.2022 from Assessment Year 2022-23 to the Assessment Year 2026-27. We are of the considered opinion that the registration u/s 12A must have been granted only after the ld. CIT(Exemptions) calling for the document/information from the trust in order

CITY HOSPITAL CHARITABLE TRUST ,MANGALORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 713/BANG/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jun 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: Na

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Shivanand Kalakeri, D.R
Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)

ac) of sub- section (1) of section 12A of the Act vide Unique Registration No. (URN) AAATC4496JE20211 dated 06.04.2022 from Assessment Year 2022-23 to the Assessment Year 2026-27. We are of the considered opinion that the registration u/s 12A must have been granted only after the ld. CIT(Exemptions) calling for the document/information from the trust in order

M/S. DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE -1, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 948/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

AC 571 in the following words: "My Lords, it appears to me that to construe the statute in question, it is not only legitimate but highly convenient to refer both to the former Act and to the ascertained evils to which the former Act had given rise, and to the later Act which provided the remedy. These three being compared

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 2086/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

AC 571 in the following words: "My Lords, it appears to me that to construe the statute in question, it is not only legitimate but highly convenient to refer both to the former Act and to the ascertained evils to which the former Act had given rise, and to the later Act which provided the remedy. These three being compared

M/S. UDUPI NIRMITHI KENDRA,UDUPI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 1962/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

AC 571 in the following words: "My Lords, it appears to me that to construe the statute in question, it is not only legitimate but highly convenient to refer both to the former Act and to the ascertained evils to which the former Act had given rise, and to the later Act which provided the remedy. These three being compared

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 2087/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

AC 571 in the following words: "My Lords, it appears to me that to construe the statute in question, it is not only legitimate but highly convenient to refer both to the former Act and to the ascertained evils to which the former Act had given rise, and to the later Act which provided the remedy. These three being compared

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 2088/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

AC 571 in the following words: "My Lords, it appears to me that to construe the statute in question, it is not only legitimate but highly convenient to refer both to the former Act and to the ascertained evils to which the former Act had given rise, and to the later Act which provided the remedy. These three being compared

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1,, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 2089/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

AC 571 in the following words: "My Lords, it appears to me that to construe the statute in question, it is not only legitimate but highly convenient to refer both to the former Act and to the ascertained evils to which the former Act had given rise, and to the later Act which provided the remedy. These three being compared

M/S. UDUPI NIRMITHI KEDRA,UDUPI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE - 1, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 947/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

AC 571 in the following words: "My Lords, it appears to me that to construe the statute in question, it is not only legitimate but highly convenient to refer both to the former Act and to the ascertained evils to which the former Act had given rise, and to the later Act which provided the remedy. These three being compared