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.

10 results for “capital gains”+ Section 142Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi31Chandigarh12Jaipur12Mumbai11Bangalore10Hyderabad8Kolkata7Nagpur7Raipur6Pune6Chennai6Lucknow5Indore5Ahmedabad3Agra3Surat3Visakhapatnam2Karnataka1Jabalpur1Cuttack1Rajkot1Cochin1Allahabad1

Key Topics

Section 153C16Addition to Income9Section 142(1)8Capital Gains7Section 143(3)6Limitation/Time-bar6Section 142A5Long Term Capital Gains5House Property5

M/S JINDAL ALUMINIUM LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 919/BANG/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri S. Parthasarathi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Harinder Kumar, CIT(A)-3
Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 80

capital gain as made by the assessing officer was without jurisdiction and upholding of the same by the learned CIT (Appeals) was invalid and liable to be cancelled. 7. The learned CIT (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the provisions of Section 142A

Section 12A4
Section 153A4
Section 1324

SHRI. SOMASHEKAR VENKATASWAMAPPA,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 3(2)(1), BANGALORE

ITA 1086/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Years : 2014-15 Shri Somashekar Venkataswamappa, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Arehalli Village, Uttarahalli Post, Income Tax, Subramanyapura Post, Circle – 3(2)(1), Bangalore-560 061. Bangalore. Pan : Acvpv 7051 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rajeev C. Nulvi, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 03.07.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.08.2019 O R D E R Per Shri Jason P Boaz, A.M. :

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev C. Nulvi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 50C

capital gains purposes during the scrutiny proceedings before the Assessing Officer, and insisted upon not taking the deemed sale consideration as per Section 50C. By virtue of the power vested in him under section .1.42A of the Income tax Act, the Assessing Officer referred the matter to the Departmental Valuation Cell vide his letter • No. ACIT

NEKKUNDI SRINIVASA REDDY KESHAVA REDDY,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2612/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Hon’Ble & Shri Soundararajan K, Hon’Ble

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 142ASection 144Section 153CSection 251

capital gain. The Ld. AO was also furnished the valuation report. Accordingly, the Ld. AO to verify the claim of the assessee referred the matter to the District Valuation Officer (“DVO”) under section 142A

NEKKUNDI SRINIVASA REDDY KESHAVA REDDY,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2613/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Hon’Ble & Shri Soundararajan K, Hon’Ble

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 142ASection 144Section 153CSection 251

capital gain. The Ld. AO was also furnished the valuation report. Accordingly, the Ld. AO to verify the claim of the assessee referred the matter to the District Valuation Officer (“DVO”) under section 142A

NEKKUNDI SRINIVASA REDDY KESHAVA REDDY,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2614/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Hon’Ble & Shri Soundararajan K, Hon’Ble

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 142ASection 144Section 153CSection 251

capital gain. The Ld. AO was also furnished the valuation report. Accordingly, the Ld. AO to verify the claim of the assessee referred the matter to the District Valuation Officer (“DVO”) under section 142A

NEKKUNDI SRINIVASA REDDY KESHAVA REDDY,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2611/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Hon’Ble & Shri Soundararajan K, Hon’Ble

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 142ASection 144Section 153CSection 251

capital gain. The Ld. AO was also furnished the valuation report. Accordingly, the Ld. AO to verify the claim of the assessee referred the matter to the District Valuation Officer (“DVO”) under section 142A

MS. PUSPHA RAO PAMIDI,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 973/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahums. Pushpa Rao Pamidi Vs Dcit, Circle - 2(1) No. 156/1, C/O T. Viswanath & Co Bengaluru Sharada Mansion, 2Nd Floor R V Road, V V Puram Bengaluru 560004 Pan – Bhhpp1695K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sathish S., Advocate Revenue By: Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 08.02.2023 O R D E R Per: George George K., J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 28.07.2022 Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2018-19. 2. There Is A Delay Of Four Days In Filing This Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay & Also An Affidavit Stating Therein The Reasons For Belated Filing Of This Appeal. On Perusal Of The Reasons Stated In The Affidavit We Find That The Delay In Filing The Appeal Cannot Be Attributed To Any Latches On The Part Of The Assessee & There Is Sufficient Cause For Belated Filing Of This Appeal. Hence, We Condone The Delay Of Four Days & Proceed To Dispose Of The Case On Merits.

For Appellant: Shri Sathish S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54E

capital gain of Rs.2,63,88,480/- from sale of duplex villa in JP Nagar (constructed area of 3735 sq.ft and land measuring 4205 sq.ft.). The solitary dispute in this appeal is whether the AO is justified in adopting the fair market value (FMV) instead of actual cost of construction claimed by the assessee regarding cost of construction of villa

S.M. CHANDRASHEKAR,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1060/BANG/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, C.AFor Respondent: Dr.K. Shankar Prasad, JCIT (D.R)
Section 23(1)(c)Section 50C

section 56(2)(vi) w.e.f. 1.4.2010 therefore, the said provision is also not applicable for the year under consideration. The Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Chandni Buchar (supra) while dealing an identical issue has held in paras 2 & 3 as under : “ 2. There is categorical finding recorded by the Commissioner of Income

SRI SRINIVASA EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

ITA 939/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Nov 2025AY 2020-21
For Appellant: \nShri M.V Prasad, CA & Shri KS Rajendra KumarFor Respondent: \nShri Muthu Shankar, CIT &
Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 25Section 250Section 8

section 132A. 50.3 Applicability-These\namendments will take effect from the 1st day of June, 2007.\"\n\n6.2 From the perusal of the section 153D of the Act read with the CBDT\nCircular No. 3 of 2008, dated 12-3-2008, the legislative intent can be gathered\nso far as that the legislature in its highest wisdom made it compulsory

SRI SRINIVASA EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BENGALURU

ITA 940/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Nov 2025AY 2021-22
For Appellant: Shri M.V Prasad, CA & Shri KS Rajendra KumarFor Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT &
Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 25Section 250Section 8

Section\n153D. It is not an exercise dealing with a immaterial matter which\ncould be corrected by taking recourse to Section 292B of the Act.\n16. We are not inclined to interdict the order of the Tribunal.\n17. Accordingly, the appeal is closed.\n6.5 The above view taken by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT