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.

21 results for “capital gains”+ Section 194Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai72Delhi45Ahmedabad23Bangalore21Raipur19Jaipur11Indore8Cuttack7Hyderabad7Chennai4Kolkata4Rajkot3Surat2Nagpur2Pune2Cochin1Amritsar1Agra1

Key Topics

Section 4024Section 26322Section 143(3)17Disallowance13Section 36(1)(viia)10Addition to Income10Section 36(1)(vii)8Section 548Deduction

DASA SHETTY KANTHA,BANGALORE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 6(3)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

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

ITA 299/BANG/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2025AY 2010-11
Section 234A

capital gains, not business income, and allowed the deduction of costs of improvement and selling expenses.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "2(47)(v)", "53A", "234A", "234B", "234C", "143(3)", "194C

DASA SHETTY KANTHA,BANGALORE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 3(2)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

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

ITA 1926/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2025AY 2013-14
Section 234A

capital gains, and the disallowance of expenses was unjustified.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "2(47)(v)", "53A", "234A", "234B", "234C", "143(3)", "194C

Showing 1–20 of 21 · Page 1 of 2

7
Comparables/TP7
Section 194J5
Section 144C5

M/S DELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTPU , BANGALORE

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

ITA 2846/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C(3)

capital adjustment shall be carried out in the light of above order of the Tribunal. Ordered accordingly. IT(TP)A No.2846/Bang/2017 M/s. Dell International Services India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 20 of 47 16. With regard to Ground Nos.5 & 6, no argument has been put before us by the ld. A.R., hence not considered for adjudication. 17. Ground No.7

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. NUTRICRAFT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, BENGALURU

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

ITA 298/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CA
Section 143(3)Section 148ASection 153CSection 194C(6)Section 194C(7)Section 36(1)(ii)Section 40

194C(7), disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) would get attracted.” Page 3 of 18 3. As the learned assessing officer as per form No. 36 stated that the order passed by the appellate authority on 12 October 2023 is received by him only on 12 October 2023, however the appeal has been filed on 21 February 2024 wherein causing

MAHESH REDDY ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 936/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2024AY 2018-19
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54

gains of\nRs.7,12,17,657/- on which deduction of Rs.4,82,00,000/- had been claimed u/s 54F\nof the IT Act....\n4.3 Thus he submitted that it is grossly incorrect to initiate 263\nproceedings on the ground of no enquiry or inadequate inquiry.\nConsequently, the order of the AO dt.28.12.2019 is neither\nerroneous nor prejudicial to the interest

MAHESH REDDY,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-2, BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1379/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2024AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54

gains of\nRs.7,12,17,657/- on which deduction of Rs.4,82,00,000/- had been claimed u/s 54F\nof the IT Act....\n4.3 Thus he submitted that it is grossly incorrect to initiate 263\nproceedings on the ground of no enquiry or inadequate inquiry.\nConsequently, the order of the AO dt.28.12.2019 is neither\nerroneous nor prejudicial to the interest

INSTAKART SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, SPECIAL RANGE-3, BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 544/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate and Ms. AnkitaFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT

gains of business or profession" or "Income from other sources" has to be computed and it lays down that such income shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), be computed in accordance with either cash or mercantile system of accounting regularly employed by the assessee. Sub-section (2) of section 145 provides that the Central Government may notify

PREMA KUMARI,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 89/BANG/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT (DR)
Section 2(13)Section 2(14)

capital gain and from other sources. She also claimed gross agricultural income of Rs. 1,14,61,407/- on account of supply of cattle feed and grass to the M/s Bannerghatta Biological Park. As such, the assessee has entered into an agreement with M/s Bannerghatta Biological Park for supply of food grains, pulses, and feeds etc. at the accepted tender

PREMA KUMARI ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 75/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT (DR)
Section 2(13)Section 2(14)

capital gain and from other sources. She also claimed gross agricultural income of Rs. 1,14,61,407/- on account of supply of cattle feed and grass to the M/s Bannerghatta Biological Park. As such, the assessee has entered into an agreement with M/s Bannerghatta Biological Park for supply of food grains, pulses, and feeds etc. at the accepted tender

MARVELL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

ITA 1608/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Rahul Chaudharym/S. Marvell India Private Limited 10Th Floor, Tower D & E Global Technology Park, Marathahalli Outer Ring Road Devarabeesanahalli Village Varthurhobli Bangalore 560 103 ………. Appellant [Pan: Aaecm5559R]

For Appellant: Sri Chavali NarayanFor Respondent: Sri Muthu Shankar
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 200ASection 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 270ASection 274Section 28

capital gains under section 48 of the Act subject to the condition that in case depreciation 7 Assessment Year 2020-2021 was obtained by the assessee in relation to such goodwill prior to the assessment year 2021-22, then the depreciation so obtained by the assessee shall be reduced from the amount of the purchase price of the goodwill. Therefore

M/S SYNDICATE BANK,MANIPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, UDUPI

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 1219/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 115JSection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

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

INSTAKART SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

In the result, the stay application dismissed as infructuous

ITA 496/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

gains of business or\nprofession\" or \"Income from other sources\" has to be computed and it lays\ndown that such income shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), be\ncomputed in accordance with either cash or mercantile system of accounting\nregularly employed by the assessee. Sub-section (2) of section 145 provides\nthat the Central Government may notify

DCIT, CC-1(4), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. INSTAKART SERVICES PVT LTD, BENGALURU

In the result, the stay application dismissed as infructuous

ITA 530/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

gains of business or\nprofession\" or \"Income from other sources\" has to be computed and it lays\ndown that such income shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), be\ncomputed in accordance with either cash or mercantile system of accounting\nregularly employed by the assessee. Sub-section (2) of section 145 provides\nthat the Central Government may notify

INSTAKART SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, SPECIAL RANG-3, BANGALORE

Appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 543/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

gains of business or\nprofession\" or \"Income from other sources\" has to be computed and it lays\ndown that such income shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), be\ncomputed in accordance with either cash or mercantile system of accounting\nregularly employed by the assessee. Sub-section (2) of section 145 provides\nthat the Central Government may notify

DCIT CC -1(4), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. INSTAKART SERVICES PVT LTD, BENGALURU

ITA 531/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

gains of business or\nprofession\" or \"Income from other sources\" has to be computed and it lays\ndown that such income shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), be\ncomputed in accordance with either cash or mercantile system of accounting\nregularly employed by the assessee. Sub-section (2) of section 145 provides\nthat the Central Government may notify

HUBLI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY ,HUBBALLI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), HUBALLI

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

ITA 341/BANG/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Dec 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Smt. Prathibha R., A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 194CSection 194JSection 201Section 250Section 40

194C of the Act, then the disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act cannot be made. This view of ours is fortified by the judgement of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Future First Info Services Pvt. Ltd. reported in 447 ITR 299 wherein held that “where there was short deduction

M/S SCANIA COMMERCIAL VEHICLES INDIA PVT LTFD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

The Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 261/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 68Section 92C

capital expenditure and further the assets were purchased from the sources of funds available in the books of accounts of the company. The disallowance of depreciation is made by the Ld. Assessing Officer merely on suspicion. 7. The Ld. DR supported the order of the Ld. Assessing Officer. 8. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the orders

JCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S HEWLETT PACKARD INDIA SALES P. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the ld AO is dismissed and Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1252/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand Kalakeri, CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 40

gains of a previous year are required to be computed for the purpose of determining tax liability. The basis of taxing income is accrual of income as well as actual receipt. If for want ITA No.1245 & 1252/Bang/2015 Page 29 of 70 of necessary material crystallising the expenditure is not in existence in respect of which such income or expenses relates

HEWLETT PAKCARD INDIA SALES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the ld AO is dismissed and Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1245/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand Kalakeri, CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 40

gains of a previous year are required to be computed for the purpose of determining tax liability. The basis of taxing income is accrual of income as well as actual receipt. If for want ITA No.1245 & 1252/Bang/2015 Page 29 of 70 of necessary material crystallising the expenditure is not in existence in respect of which such income or expenses relates

WIPRO GE HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 285/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Feb 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 36(1)(vii)Section 37Section 92C

capital in nature. 6.2. Without prejudice to the above, the learned AO has erred on facts in disallowing an amount of Rs 25,500,765 pertaining to lease rentals on equipment as against the amount of Rs 23,059,332 claimed by the Appellant in the computation of income. 6.3. The learned CIT(A) and the AO have erred