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.

176 results for “capital gains”+ Section 2(71)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai950Delhi642Chennai256Ahmedabad211Bangalore176Jaipur166Hyderabad113Chandigarh110Kolkata94Cochin75Raipur72Indore64Pune52Nagpur36Surat35Lucknow28Rajkot26Visakhapatnam24Cuttack16Amritsar10Jodhpur8Agra7Guwahati7Ranchi7Jabalpur6Allahabad6Dehradun6Patna5Panaji1

Key Topics

Addition to Income81Section 153A64Section 13260Section 14856Section 143(3)56Disallowance41Section 10A39Section 25034Section 133A34

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)

71,08,935/-. Hence, considering the deposit of Rs. 4.60 Crores in Capital Gains Account and the money taken by the Department to the extent of Rs. 2,99,50,000/-, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the CIT(Appeals) has rightly allowed the claim of the assessee under Section

Showing 1–20 of 176 · Page 1 of 9

...
Section 12A28
Deduction28
Survey u/s 133A21

INCOMETAX OFFICER, WARD 1, UDUPI, UDUPI vs. BRAHMAVARA VYAVASAYA SEVA, BRAHMAVARA

In the result, the appeals filed by Revenue are allowed and the COs\nfiled by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 667/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 May 2024AY 2018-19
Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

gains of\nbusiness attributable to the activity of carrying on the business of banking\nor providing credit facilities to its members by a co-operative society and is\nliable to be deducted from the gross total income under Section 80P of the\nPage 7 of 22\nITA Nos.656, 667, 668/Bang/2024\nC.O. Nos. 10, 11, 12/Bang/2024\nAct. The Hon'ble Karnataka

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU vs. ALAGAPPA ANNAMALAI (HUF), BENGALURU

The appeals of the assessees are allowed\nand revenue appeals are dismissed

ITA 955/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Aug 2024AY 2017-18
Section 131

2(47)(v) of the I.T. Act cannot be\ninvoked so as to have the capital gains into tax in the assessment year 2005-\n2006 and thus the very foundation of the assessee case is devoid of merits\nand not tenable and more so there is a specific clause in the JDA as\nenumerated earlier that the assessee is only

SRI ALAGAPPA ANNAMALAI(HUF),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed\nand revenue appeals are dismissed

ITA 776/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Aug 2024AY 2017-18
Section 131

2(47)(v) of the I.T. Act cannot be\ninvoked so as to have the capital gains into tax in the assessment year 2005\n2006 and thus the very foundation of the assessee's case is devoid of merits\nand not tenable and more so there is a specific clause in the JDA as\nenumerated earlier that the assessee

SRI ALAGAPPA MUTHIAH(HUF),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(4), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed\nand revenue appeals are dismissed

ITA 775/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Aug 2024AY 2017-18
Section 131

2(47)(v) of the I.T. Act cannot be\ninvoked so as to bring the capital gains into tax in the assessment year 2005-\n2006 and thus the very foundation of the assessee's case is devoid of merits\nand not tenable and more so there is a specific clause in the JDA as\nenumerated earlier that the assessee

M/S PARAMANAND AND SONS,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2055/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Years : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Ashok A Kulkarni, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Dept
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 71(2)

section 71(2) of the Act, the setting off of the business losses with income under the head capital gain

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, UDUPI, UDUPI vs. BRAHMAVARA VYAVASAYA SEVA, BRAHMAVARA

In the result, the appeals filed by Revenue are allowed and the COs\nfiled by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 668/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 May 2024AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Ms. Akshaya K. S, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

gains of\nbusiness attributable to the activity of carrying on the business of banking\nor providing credit facilities to its members by a co-operative society and is\nliable to be deducted from the gross total income under Section 80P of the\nPage 7 of 22\nITA Nos.656, 667, 668/Bang/2024\nC.O. Nos. 10, 11, 12/Bang/2024\nAct. The Hon'ble Karnataka

SHRI K.G SUBBARAMA SETTY ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT 5(2)(1) BANGALORE, C R BUILDING

In the result all the three appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 965/BANG/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Siddesh N Gaddi, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N, D.R
Section 127Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250

71,331 Thus, the AO completed the assessment proceedings on a total assessed income of Rs.5,26,62,915/- against the return income ofRs.5,07,94,880/- under section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 30/12/2022. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act, dated 30/12/2022, the assessee preferred an appeal before

K A SUJIT CHANDAN,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE BENGALURU.-5(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result all the three appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 964/BANG/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Siddesh N Gaddi, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N, D.R
Section 127Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250

71,331 Thus, the AO completed the assessment proceedings on a total assessed income of Rs.5,26,62,915/- against the return income ofRs.5,07,94,880/- under section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 30/12/2022. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act, dated 30/12/2022, the assessee preferred an appeal before

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, UDUPI, UDUPI vs. BRAHMAVARA VYAVAYASAYA SEVA, BRAHMAVARA

In the result, the appeals filed by Revenue are allowed and the COs\nfiled by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 656/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 May 2024AY 2017-18
Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

gains of\nbusiness attributable to the activity of carrying on the business of banking\nor providing credit facilities to its members by a co-operative society and is\nliable to be deducted from the gross total income under Section 80P of the\nAct. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court also distinguished the decision of\nthe Hon'ble Supreme Court

NALAPAD PROPERTIES ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMER TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3) , BANGALORE

ITA 1297/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Aug 2024AY 2017-18
Section 139(9)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 250Section 45

2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section\n(1), the profits or gains arising from the transfer by way of\nconversion by the owner of a capital asset into, or its\ntreatment by him as stock-in-trade of a business carried on\nby him shall be chargeable to income-tax as his income of\nthe previous year in which

M/S. ATRIA WIND (KADAMBUR) PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALUAU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 692/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Vilas V. Shinde, D.R
Section 132Section 132ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234BSection 47

2(47) of the Act defines the transfer in relation to a capital asset. Section 45 of the Act deals with the profits or gains arising out of the transfer of the capital asset and treated the same as deemed income. Admittedly, in this case, there is a transfer of capital asset owned by the firm during the previous year

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BENGALURU vs. HIREHAL JAIRAJ BALRAM, BENGALURU

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

ITA 1961/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: FixedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2020-21
Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)Section 50C

2(47)(v) of the Act. In such circumstances, the\nessential conditions of transfer having not been satisfied,\nthere can be no charge of capital gains under Section 45(1)\nof the Act in this assessment year.\n9. We also note that during reassessment proceedings, the\nassessee had submitted photographs showing that the\nproject was still under construction, which substantiates

M/S. NAVODAYA GRAMA VIKAS CHARITABLE TRUST,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 172/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Navodaya Grama Vikas Charitable Trust, The Deputy #14-7-1005, Scdcc Commissioner Of Bank Ltd., Income Tax, Head Office Building, Central Circle – 1, Kodialbail, Vs. Mangaluru. Mangaluru – 575 003. Pan: Aaatn7594E Appellant Respondent : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate & Assessee By Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, Ca Revenue By : Shri D.K. Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 07-07-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-08-2023 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.03.2022 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-2, Panaji For A.Y. 2017-18 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant Are Opposed To Law. Equity, Weight Of Evidence. Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Learned Cit [A] Is Not Justified In Upholding The Disallowance Of The Exemption Claimed U/S.11 Of The Act

For Respondent: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate &
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 2Section 234

capital so as to advance the loan. The appellant is providing loans by association with various commercial banks by raising loans from them. Such kind of micro finance activity cannot be termed as charitable activity rather it is a business activity. In order to become a charitable activity, the institution must have advance loans at a subsidized rate of interest

AKSHAY KUMAR RUNGTA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per above terms

ITA 66/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyit(It)A No.66/Bang/2024 Assessment Year :2015-16

For Appellant: Shri. Ravishankar S. V, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 147Section 147rSection 148Section 151Section 153Section 153CSection 250

capital gain of Rs.28,65,882/-in the financial year 2014-15 in the scrip of M/s GCM Securities Limited, M/s Unno Industries, M/s Pearl Electric Limited, M/s Mahaveer Advanced Rem and claimed the same as exempt u/s 10(38) of the act. During the course of search and seizure proceedings u/s 132 of the Act, it was found that

CHANDRASHEKAR HEMANTH ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 7(2)(4) BANGALORE, BENGALURU

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

ITA 1677/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sridhar E, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 69ASection 80

71, so much of the loss as has not been so set off or, [* * *] where he has no income under any other head, the whole loss shall, subject to the other provisions of this Chapter, be carried forward to the following assessment year, and-- (i) it shall be set off against the profits and gains, if any, of any business

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, MANGALORE vs. SHRI.P.M.A.RAZAK, MANGALORE

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

ITA 1637/BANG/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Saravanan, D.RFor Respondent: Smt. Sheetal, A.R
Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(22)(e)

capital gains arising before the1st day of April, 1946, or after the 31st day of March, 1948, and before the 1st day of April, 1956. Explanation 2.—The expression "accumulated profits" in sub- clauses (a), (b), (d) and (e), shall include all profits of the company up to the date of distribution or payment referred to in those sub- clauses

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

section 234A, 234B and 234C\nof the Act which is consequential in nature and therefore not requiring\nany separate adjudication. Hence, all these grounds of appeal are\nhereby dismissed as infructuous.\n20.\nThe issue raised by the assessee through Ground Nos.3 to 7 are\ninterconnected and pertains to the taxation of receipt of sale\nconsideration of flats received under

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

section 234A, 234B and 234C\nof the Act which is consequential in nature and therefore not requiring\nany separate adjudication. Hence, all these grounds of appeal are\nhereby dismissed as infructuous.\n\n20. The issue raised by the assessee through Ground Nos.3 to 7 are\ninterconnected and pertains to the taxation of receipt of sale\nconsideration of flats received under

DCIT, CC-2(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. CHAITANYA PROPERTIES PVT LTD, BENGALURU

ITA 1158/BANG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Siva Prasad Reddy, ITP and Shri Balachandran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nandini Das, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153C

2. STCG Rs. 84,92,10,510/- 3. LCTG Rs. 71,90,45,278/- 4. Disallowances u/s 14A Rs. 7,91,031/- 6. The aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the learned CIT(A) who vide order dated 29-12-2016, allowed the appeal in favor of the assessee. . Page 3 of 9 7. Being dissatisfied with the decision