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.

4 results for “capital gains”+ Section 13Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi14Cuttack7Mumbai6Jaipur5Indore5Bangalore4Pune3Ahmedabad2Dehradun2Raipur1Amritsar1Hyderabad1Kolkata1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)4Section 404Section 143(1)3Section 103Section 512Section 902Section 2012Section 194A2Limitation/Time-bar2

MADHU KHATRI, SINGAPORE,SINGAPORE vs. DCIT CIRCLE 3(3)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

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

ITA 1032/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year :2017-18

For Appellant: Shri. Naman Maloo, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Pradeep S, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 10Section 10(14)Section 143(1)Section 90

capital gains of Rs.5,98,727/- and income from other sources of Rs.23,55,452/-. The return was processed on 30.03.2019 assessing the gross total income at Rs.6,17,80,857/- in which the salary income was assessed at Rs.5,83,14,734/-. Resultantly, there is variation of Rs.7,61,183/- under the salary income. During the impugned Assessment Year

Exemption2
Disallowance2
Addition to Income2

SHRI. M.NANDA KUMAR, L/R SMT. JAYASHREE R,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 356/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015-16 Shri M. Nanda Kumar, By Lr Smt. Jayashree R, No. 25, Shankamma Bldg, The Income Tax 9Th Cross, Officer, Gundappa Gowda Road, Ward – 7(2)(3), Ejipura, Vivek Nagar Post, Bangalore. Vs. Bangalore – 560 047. Pan: Amnpm8080H Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shri M. Narendra Kumar, No. 25, Shankamma Bldg, The Income Tax 9Th Cross, Officer, Gundappa Gowda Road, Ward – 7(2)(3), Ejipura, Vivek Nagar Post, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 047. Vs. Pan: Amnpm8079N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri H. Guruswamy, Itp : Smt. Priyadarshini Revenue By Besaganni, Addl. Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 22-06-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 27-06-2023

For Appellant: Shri H. Guruswamy, ITP
Section 51

gain in accordance with the share of the assessee being one of the persons in the co-parceners. The Ld.AR further submitted that assessee had claimed exemption u/s. 54F which was denied for the reason that there was no construction of residential house which is an admitted fact. 5.7. The Ld.DR on the contrary submitted that the entire facts requires

SHRI. M.NARENDRA KUMAR,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 357/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015-16 Shri M. Nanda Kumar, By Lr Smt. Jayashree R, No. 25, Shankamma Bldg, The Income Tax 9Th Cross, Officer, Gundappa Gowda Road, Ward – 7(2)(3), Ejipura, Vivek Nagar Post, Bangalore. Vs. Bangalore – 560 047. Pan: Amnpm8080H Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shri M. Narendra Kumar, No. 25, Shankamma Bldg, The Income Tax 9Th Cross, Officer, Gundappa Gowda Road, Ward – 7(2)(3), Ejipura, Vivek Nagar Post, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 047. Vs. Pan: Amnpm8079N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri H. Guruswamy, Itp : Smt. Priyadarshini Revenue By Besaganni, Addl. Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 22-06-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 27-06-2023

For Appellant: Shri H. Guruswamy, ITP
Section 51

gain in accordance with the share of the assessee being one of the persons in the co-parceners. The Ld.AR further submitted that assessee had claimed exemption u/s. 54F which was denied for the reason that there was no construction of residential house which is an admitted fact. 5.7. The Ld.DR on the contrary submitted that the entire facts requires

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. VIJAYA BANK, BARODA CORPORATE CENTRE BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX

In the result, the appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2296/BANG/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Shri S. Ananthan, CA
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 201Section 40

13A of the Act. Their income is not liable to tax. Therefore, the appellant Bank did not deduct TDS on the interest income. Page 6 of 8 6.1The appellant has given reference to the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, in the case of Canara Bank reported in (2016) 386 ITR 229 (P&H). The court