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.

496 results for “capital gains”+ Section 139(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,479Delhi1,108Jaipur579Chennai498Bangalore496Kolkata390Ahmedabad372Hyderabad293Surat240Pune194Chandigarh185Indore170Karnataka162Cochin143Nagpur91Raipur71Visakhapatnam70Agra69Calcutta55Guwahati53Cuttack50Lucknow49Rajkot49Amritsar41Jodhpur23Dehradun19Jabalpur15Allahabad15SC15Panaji14Patna12Telangana12Varanasi7Ranchi6Rajasthan3Kerala1Andhra Pradesh1Gauhati1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1

Key Topics

Addition to Income66Section 153A47Section 13245Section 143(3)43Section 153C36Disallowance35Section 4029Section 14826Section 139(1)25Section 143(2)

GOBINDRAM CHANDRAMANI VIVEK,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD 1(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in the manner indicated in this order

ITA 656/BANG/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Mrs. Beena Pillai & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Sh. Ashok A Kulkarni, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 54Section 54(2)Section 54F

139(1), as is stipulated u/s 54(2). The assessee purchased residential house for a total consideration of Rs. 1,64,74,870/- on 28.02.2013(date of transfer of original asset being on 03.03.2011) i.e. within two years allowed for seeking exemption of long term capital gains earned on transfer of original asset vide Section

Showing 1–20 of 496 · Page 1 of 25

...
25
Deduction22
Search & Seizure17

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 of Rs.28,81,917/- which has been claimed as deduction under section 54F(1) of the Act. Assessee has invested in the construction of residential property of his spouse Smt. N. Mahalakshmi at Plot No.283, I Block, Banashankari 6th Stage, Bangalore. Assessee filed return of income under section 139

IBM CORPORATION,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 544/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital gain was declared at Rs. 29,74,951 by the assessee in the original return, a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued. Pursuant to the said notice, the assessee filed the revised return of income showing higher income. The said return of income was accompanied by a note in which the assessee submitted that he surrendered

IBM UNITED KINGDOM LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 497/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital gain was declared at Rs. 29,74,951 by the assessee in the original return, a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued. Pursuant to the said notice, the assessee filed the revised return of income showing higher income. The said return of income was accompanied by a note in which the assessee submitted that he surrendered

IBM CORPORATION,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(2)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 499/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital gain was declared at Rs. 29,74,951 by the assessee in the original return, a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued. Pursuant to the said notice, the assessee filed the revised return of income showing higher income. The said return of income was accompanied by a note in which the assessee submitted that he surrendered

IBM ISRAEL LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 496/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital gain was declared at Rs. 29,74,951 by the assessee in the original return, a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued. Pursuant to the said notice, the assessee filed the revised return of income showing higher income. The said return of income was accompanied by a note in which the assessee submitted that he surrendered

AJIT VASANT PAI,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

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

ITA 741/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri H. Anil Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri K R Narayana, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(1)(a)Section 139(3)Section 139(5)Section 142Section 143(1)(a)Section 154

Capital gain' and claims that the said loss or part thereof should be carried forward under section 72, 73 or 74 etc. then he should file the said return within a time stipulated under section 139(1

ACIT, BANGALORE vs. SHRI. PRASHANTH PRAKASH, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed, while the Cross Objection by assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 864/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jun 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri H.N. Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri P. Dhivahar, Jt. CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 54F

section 139” The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court judgment in the case of Fatima Bai v. ITO, [2009] 32 DTR 243 (Kar). In the aforesaid case, the facts were that the capital gains were invested on or before the due date specified u/s. 139(4) of the Act, but the unutilized capital gain had not been deposited in the specified

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 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

139, after the expiry of one month from the date on which he was served with a notice under sub-section (1) of section 142 or sub-section (2) of section 143 or after the completion of the assessment, whichever is earlier; ITA Nos.554 & 555/Bang/2018 Page 18 of 64 (b) where he has made no such return, after the expiry

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

139, after the expiry of one month from the date on which he was served with a notice under sub-section (1) of section 142 or sub-section (2) of section 143 or after the completion of the assessment, whichever is earlier; ITA Nos.554 & 555/Bang/2018 Page 18 of 64 (b) where he has made no such return, after the expiry

SMT.ANUPAMA NAGESH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 2288/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Mar 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri K.S. Nagesh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri AR.V.Sreenivasan, JCIT (D.R)
Section 54Section 54F

1) shall be deemed to be income chargeable under the head "Capital gains" relating to long-term capital assets of the previous year in which such new asset is transferred.] [(4) The amount of the net consideration which is not appropriated by the assessee towards the purchase of the new asset made within one year before the date on which

SRI JOSEPH K.ZACHARIAH ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

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

ITA 879/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Dec 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(It)A No.879/Bang/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Pratik R., A.RFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, D.R
Section 119(2)Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 54Section 54(1)

gain in purchase of new property before the due date of furnishing the return of income u/s 139 of the Act, which encompasses sub-section (1), sub- section (4) & sub-section (5) of section 139 of the Act. Secondly, if it is not done so, it has to be deposited in a capital

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

section 47. Therefore, following this decision, this question has to be and is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.” 26. The decision in the case of Tribhuvandas G.Patel (supra) is a case where the deed of reconstitution specifically referred to release of rights of the outgoing partners in the assets of the partnership and further

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)

139 as well as duly recorded in the books of account then long term capital gain arising from the sale of listed shares is exempted U/s 10(38) of the Act. The withdrawal of claim of exemption by the assessee in the statement U/s 132(4) of the Act, ignoring the supporting evidence of genuineness of the claim, would

CHINNAPPA ANTHONAPPA,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 663/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri B.S. Balachandran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139Section 147Section 45Section 54B

1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), where the capital gain arises from the transfer of a capital asset being land which, in the two years immediately preceding the date on which the transfer took place, was being used by the assessee or a parent of his for agricultural purposes (hereinafter referred to as the original asset

ASST.C.I.T., MANGALORE vs. DR. YUSUF KUMBLE, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1379/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 May 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.S. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 47

139 of the Act. Against the said return of income, the AO computed the long term capital gain in respect of land property contributed as capital contribution in the partnership firm known as M/s Medicity Hospital and Research Centre, which was subsequently converted into a going concern to a company by name, M/s Mangalore Indiana Hospital Pvt. Ltd. under provisions

ASST.C.I.T., MANGALORE vs. DR. ALI KUMBLE, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1376/BANG/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.S. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 47

139 of the Act. Against the said return of income, the AO computed the long term capital gain in respect of land property contributed as capital contribution in the partnership firm known as M/s Medicity Hospital and Research Centre, which was subsequently converted into a going concern to a company by name, M/s Mangalore Indiana Hospital Pvt. Ltd. under provisions

ASST.C.I.T., MANGALORE vs. DR. ALI KUMBLE, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1377/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 May 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.S. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 47

139 of the Act. Against the said return of income, the AO computed the long term capital gain in respect of land property contributed as capital contribution in the partnership firm known as M/s Medicity Hospital and Research Centre, which was subsequently converted into a going concern to a company by name, M/s Mangalore Indiana Hospital Pvt. Ltd. under provisions

ASST.C.I.T., MANGALORE vs. DR. YUSUF KUMBLE, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1378/BANG/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.S. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 47

139 of the Act. Against the said return of income, the AO computed the long term capital gain in respect of land property contributed as capital contribution in the partnership firm known as M/s Medicity Hospital and Research Centre, which was subsequently converted into a going concern to a company by name, M/s Mangalore Indiana Hospital Pvt. Ltd. under provisions

ITO, BANGALORE vs. SRI. C. NANJUNDIAH, BANGALORE

In the result we are of the opinion that assessee has to succeed in this appeal

ITA 733/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi

For Appellant: Shri. Naginchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P. K. Srihari, Addl.CIT
Section 54F

1) of the Act, but will also include all sub-sections of section 139. Perusal of the above section shows that the assessee has to utilize the amount of capital gains