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.

168 results for “capital gains”+ Section 171clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai538Delhi371Bangalore168Karnataka113Jaipur104Chennai68Chandigarh67Ahmedabad62Hyderabad54Raipur54Kolkata51Indore44Pune35Cuttack34Cochin33Lucknow32Guwahati24Calcutta18Nagpur16Amritsar12Visakhapatnam9SC9Surat8Ranchi6Panaji4Telangana4Jabalpur3Rajasthan3Rajkot3Dehradun2Jodhpur2ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Andhra Pradesh1Patna1Varanasi1

Key Topics

Addition to Income68Disallowance43Section 13237Section 143(3)28Section 36(1)(viia)26Section 36(1)(vii)25Section 133A25Section 14825Section 153A

M/S HIRSCH BRACELET INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3392/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri R.S.V.S. Pavan Kumar, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 32(2)Section 50

gains from sale of its capital assets in its return of income. The CIT(A) dismissed the claim of assessee holding as follows:- Page 9 of 13 “ ……. No revised return of income was filed by the assessee. So the claim of the assessee could not have been considered by the AO in view of the binding decision

M/S. ABB LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. THE ADDL. CIT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal by the Assessee is allowed

Showing 1–20 of 168 · Page 1 of 9

...
24
Section 132(4)22
Deduction15
Survey u/s 133A8
ITA 1281/BANG/2010[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 May 2015AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz Assessment Year : 1997-98

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Arvind, Sr. Counsel

section 55." 31. Thus the only way to bring to tax sale consideration received on transfer of “Technical know-how” is to call it “goodwill” and that is probably Page 27 of 45 the reason why the AO preferred to call transfer of Technical know-how as transfer of goodwill. We are of the view that “Technical know

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

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

171 to 176 of the paper book, it is specifically observed by the AO in Para 2 on page 173 that there is no specific mention of name in any statement. Hence, it is apparent that in the present case, there is no such information with the AO that the present assessee is getting any accommodation entry. Further, in Para

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

171 to 176 of the paper book, it is specifically observed by the AO in Para 2 on page 173 that there is no specific mention of name in any statement. Hence, it is apparent that in the present case, there is no such information with the AO that the present assessee is getting any accommodation entry. Further, in Para

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

171 to 176 of the paper book, it is specifically observed by the AO in Para 2 on page 173 that there is no specific mention of name in any statement. Hence, it is apparent that in the present case, there is no such information with the AO that the present assessee is getting any accommodation entry. Further, in Para

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

171 to 176 of the paper book, it is specifically observed by the AO in Para 2 on page 173 that there is no specific mention of name in any statement. Hence, it is apparent that in the present case, there is no such information with the AO that the present assessee is getting any accommodation entry. Further, in Para

SRI. KEMPANNA (HUF - DISRUPTED),BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 278/BANG/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Sukumar, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 144Section 148

capital gains was offered. The learned CIT[A] also held that the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case do not support the claim of deduction u/s.54F of the Act, for not only in not filing the return but Page 7 of 37 also in the absence of meeting the stipulated conditionality required to claim deduction

SRI K.RAMESH REDDY (HUF) ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1057/BANG/2017[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2021AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2002-03 Shri. K. Ramesh Reddy, Huf, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, No.144, 10Th Cross, Indiranagar I Stage, Circle -1(2)(2), Bengaluru – 560 038. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaghk 4712 F Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. V. Srinivasan, Advocate Respondent By : Shri. Sankar Ganesh, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 08.09.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.09.2021 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan:

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

capital gains as discussed above Rs. 17,11,203/- Total assessed income Rs.1.13,03,472” 6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the AO, the assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A) and the date of institution of appeal before CIT(A) was 17.1.2007. However, the impugned order was passed by the CIT(A) only on 24.3.2017. 7. During pendency

SMT. SUBBALAKSHMI,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1149/BANG/2008[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Dec 2019AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dilip, Junior to Shri K.V. Arvind

capital gains and other income cannot be taxed in their respective hands. 4. The A.O. while passing the assessment orders in the case of the appellants had examined the aforesaid claim. The A.O. has also noticed that all the properties that were held by the appellant belonged to late Sri Anjanamurthy and they were HUF properties. The A.O. has also

M/S. ANAND DIAGNOSTIC LABORATORY,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 969/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Arjunraj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Netrapal M S, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 143Section 143(3)

capital gains and relied on CIT v. Dewas Cine Corporation [1968] 68 ITR 240 (SC) referred to above. It held that adjustment of the rights of the partners in a dissolved firm by allotment of its assets is not a transfer for a price. The facts of the instant case are identical with the facts of the case

M/S. ANAND DIAGNOSTIC LABORATORY,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 968/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Arjunraj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Netrapal M S, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 143Section 143(3)

capital gains and relied on CIT v. Dewas Cine Corporation [1968] 68 ITR 240 (SC) referred to above. It held that adjustment of the rights of the partners in a dissolved firm by allotment of its assets is not a transfer for a price. The facts of the instant case are identical with the facts of the case

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

gains derived from such business for ten consecutive assessment years. (4) This section applies to - any enterprise carrying on the business of (i) developing or (ii) operating and maintaining or (iii) developing, operating and maintaining any infrastructure facility which fulfils all the following conditions, namely :— a) it is owned by a company registered in India or by a consortium

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

gains derived from such business for ten consecutive assessment years. (4) This section applies to - any enterprise carrying on the business of (i) developing or (ii) operating and maintaining or (iii) developing, operating and maintaining any infrastructure facility which fulfils all the following conditions, namely :— a) it is owned by a company registered in India or by a consortium

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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 583/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 May 2022AY 2015-16

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

gains derived from such business for ten consecutive assessment years. (4) This section applies to - any enterprise carrying on the business of (i) developing or (ii) operating and maintaining or (iii) developing, operating and maintaining any infrastructure facility which fulfils all the following conditions, namely :— a) it is owned by a company registered in India or by a consortium

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S BOSCH LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeals are partly allowed and revenue’s appeal for the A

ITA 750/BANG/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Nov 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Kumar, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Parbat, CIT-III (D.R)
Section 23

gains derived from the manufacture of goods in a factory, there shall, subject to the conditions specified in sub-section (2), be allowed a deduction of an amount equal to thirty per cent. of additional wages paid to the new regular workmen employed by the assessee in such factory, in the previous year, for three assessment years including the assessment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. CANARA BANK, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 297/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear: 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri Abharana &Anantham, A.RsFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 250

capital gain tax can be levied. " 53. Concluded at page 12 para 21 as under: "27. In the result, we hold that sub-section 115JB as it stood prior to its amendment by virtue of Finance Act, 2012, would not be applicable to a banking company. We answer the question No. 2 in favour of the assessee and against

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1)(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S. BPL LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1513/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2016-17 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Bpl Ltd., Circle – 1(1)(2), 11Th Km, Bannerghatta Road, Arakere, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 076. Pan : Aaacb 9461 B Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Sheethal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 28.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.03.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Smt. Sheethal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 133(6)Section 41(1)Section 74

capital gains without taking any proper remedial action for the relevant Asst. yeas for which the said losses pertain to. If at all the AO had any doubt about the genuineness of the said loss claim of the appellant, the proper course of action is to re-open the said assessments for the purpose of determination of the allowable losses

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1)(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S ATRIA HYDEL POWER LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, ITA Nos.534 to 556/Bang/2018 and CO Nos

ITA 114/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Years : 2010-11 Income-Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Atria Hydel Power Ltd., Ward - 1(1)(2), #1, Palace Road, Bengaluru. Bangalore-560 001. Pan : Aacca 3754 E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 211(2)Section 80I

gains attributable to revaluation of the asset is not subject to MAT liability. It is, therefore, proposed to amend section 115JB to provide that the book profit for the purpose of section 115JB shall be increased by the amount standing in the revaluation reserve relating to the revalued asset which has been retired or disposed, if the same

M/S. KHADEER AHMED KHAN,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 4(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2115/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jun 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2012-13 Shri. Khadeer Ahmed Khan, The Assistant Commissioner Of No.42, Doddkallasandara, Income-Tax, Kankapura Main Road, Vs. Circle – 4(2)(1), Bengaluru – 560 062. Bengaluru. Pan : Aavpk 1742 Q Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. H. Guruswamy, Itp Revenue By : Smt. R. Premi, Jcit (Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 07.04.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.06.2021

For Appellant: Shri. H. Guruswamy, ITPFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, JCIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 54F

Capital Gain on transfer of Land at Sy. No. 149, Bukkasagara Village was disallowed and brought to tax. 7. The assessee submits that the Ld. AO in para 12 of the Assessment Order has held that the following two properties were owned by the assessee as on the date of transfer. i. House No. 82/10, RBI Colony, 2nd Cross, Jayanagar