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.

137 results for “capital gains”+ Section 221clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi374Mumbai299Chennai142Bangalore137Jaipur60Ahmedabad53Kolkata39Hyderabad29Raipur29Lucknow18Pune14Chandigarh11Surat8Calcutta7Cochin7Guwahati5SC5Visakhapatnam5Rajkot5Indore4Jodhpur3Kerala3Orissa2Nagpur2Rajasthan2Cuttack2Andhra Pradesh1Agra1Patna1Dehradun1Karnataka1

Key Topics

Section 201(1)138Section 20196Section 1095Section 19292Section 153A75TDS56Section 13255Section 133A48Survey u/s 133A48Addition to Income

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

SRI SURESH.C,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

Showing 1–20 of 137 · Page 1 of 7

35
Disallowance27
Section 6820

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

ITA 1625/BANG/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Apr 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Siddappaji, Addl.CIT
Section 54FSection 54F(1)

capital gain shall be dealt with in accordance with the following provisions of this section that is to say,- ………” “Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall apply where – (a) the assessee- (i) owns more than one residential house, other than the new asset, on the date of transfer of the original asset; or (ii) purchases any residential house

M/S K.BABU (HUF) ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-7(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 942/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Nov 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2010-11 Shri. K. Babu (Huf), Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.57/2, Dollars Colony, Ward – 7(2)(3), 1St Cross, 2Nd Main, 4Th Phase, Bengaluru. J P Nagar, Bengaluru – 560 078. Pan: Aaggk 0809 G Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. V. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Respondent By : Shri. Kannan Narayanan, Jt.Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 19.11.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.11.2020 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. V. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Kannan Narayanan, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 148Section 2(47)(v)

221 (Karn). In the context of section 54F which is in para materia under section 54F of the Act, the Hon’ble High Court held as follows: “8. For a proper appreciation of the aforesaid contention, it is necessary to have a careful look at Section 54 of the income Tax Act, which reads as under: 54. Profit on sale

SHRI.T.A.V.GUPTA ,TURUVEKERE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 , TIPTUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 209/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Apr 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazshri. T.A.V. Gupta, Birla Corner, B.T. Road, Turuvekere – 572227, Pan: Albpg6202G. . Appellant

For Appellant: Shri B.S. Balachandran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Padmameenakshi, JCIT
Section 54F

capital gain computed is based on the value of 6 flats which the assessee got as his share of built up area under the JDA. The assessee claimed deduct ion u/s 54F of the Act in respect of all the 6 flats. The AO refused to allow the claim for deduction for on the ground that u/s.54F

M/S NITESH ESTATES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTL TAXN) CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

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

ITA 3135/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Narayana K.R., D.R
Section 195Section 201

capital gains arising on the payment of Rs 4 crores made by the assessee to the non-resident payee. He accordingly held Assessee to be in default and levied tax & interest liability. 3. Against this assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The contention of the Ld. A.R. is that assessee was not aware of the fact that

SAI SATHYA SAI CENTRAL TRUST ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) RANGE-17 , BANGALORE

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

ITA 1129/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Dec 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri B.R Baskaranassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri V Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, CIT (DR)
Section 10Section 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 70

section 11 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Undertakings) Act 1970 to the notice of Ld CIT(A), but the Ld CIT(A) has rejected the same by observing that it is a deeming provision and further Canara Bank is regulated under Banking Regulations Act. However, we find merit in the contention of the assessee and hence we are unable

SMT. NETHRAVATHI,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(3), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2630/BANG/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Apr 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazsmt. Nethravathi, No.2, 8Th Cross, 1St Main, Sampangiram Nagar, Bengaluru. . Appellant Pan – Aafpn6032J. Vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Warad – 2(3)(3), Bengaluru. . Respondent Appellant By : Shri P Dinesh, Advocate Respondent By : Shri B.R Ramesh, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 11-04-2018 Date Of Pronouncement : -04-2018 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri P Dinesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B.R Ramesh, JCIT
Section 54Section 54FSection 54F(1)Section 54F(3)

capital gain on transfer of land under JDA was assesseable only in AY 2013-14 i.e., the previous year in which JDA was entered into as per the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of T.K.Dayalu. He however assessed the income declared on a protective basis allowing nil deduction u/s.54F of the Act. 5. Before

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

capital gain. Accordingly, in view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any error or illegality in the orders of the authorities below. 13. Ground No.4 is regarding disallowance of deduction under Section 80JJA in respect of workman whose duration of work in a year was less than 300 days. 14. We have heard

SHRI. PANKAJ KAPUR,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BENGALURU

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

ITA 708/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri S Parthasarathi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nischal B, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 54F

capital gains. 4.The learned Commissioner (A) erred in upholding the disallowance of exemption claimed under sec 54F of the Act by the appellant. 5.The learned Commissioner (A) erred in not considering the proof of investment made by the appellant for considering the deduction under sc 54F of the Act. 6.The learned Commissioner (A) ought to have appreciated that though

MR. MAURICE PATRICK DE REBELLO,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 7(1), BENGALURU

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

ITA 1351/BANG/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jan 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Ashok A.Kulkarni, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR
Section 148Section 2(47)(v)Section 53ASection 54

section 2(47)(v) of the I.T.Act. As such, assessment year 2009- 2010 is the year of transfer and the income is chargeable in the said assessment year. The Assessing Officer also did not grant the benefit of exemption u/s 54 of the I.T.Act for the entire built up area except for the self-occupied flat of the assessee

M/S. THE SANDUR MANGANESE & IRON ORES LTD,SANDUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, BELLARY

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1965/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri S. Parthasarathi
Section 37(1)

221 for business purpose. Capital Expenditure. 3.3 The Ld.AO held that the above expenditure claimed by the assessee were not wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business and therefore were not liable to be allowed. 3.4 Further, the Ld.AO also included Rs. 4,78,40,795/- out of E- auction sale by holding that the assessee was entitled

M/S. THE SANDUR MANGANESE & IRON ORES LTD,SANDUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,, BELLARY

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1964/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri S. Parthasarathi
Section 37(1)

221 for business purpose. Capital Expenditure. 3.3 The Ld.AO held that the above expenditure claimed by the assessee were not wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business and therefore were not liable to be allowed. 3.4 Further, the Ld.AO also included Rs. 4,78,40,795/- out of E- auction sale by holding that the assessee was entitled

M/S. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,THIRTHAHALLI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) WARD, DAVANGERE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for assessment years 2011-12 to 2014-15 on the legal issue and the appeals for assessment years 2015-

ITA 507/BANG/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Chytanya KK, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. R Premi, JCIT (DR)
Section 10Section 133ASection 192Section 201Section 201(1)

capital gains arose to the Respondent on redemption of Stock Appreciation Rights since there was no cost of acquisition involved from the side of the Respondent. The meaning of the word perquisite for the instant case is given under Section 17(2) of the IT Act. The Revenue alternatively contended that the case of the Respondent should come under

M/S. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,DAVANGERE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) WARD, DAVANGERE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for assessment years 2011-12 to 2014-15 on the legal issue and the appeals for assessment years 2015-

ITA 519/BANG/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Chytanya KK, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. R Premi, JCIT (DR)
Section 10Section 133ASection 192Section 201Section 201(1)

capital gains arose to the Respondent on redemption of Stock Appreciation Rights since there was no cost of acquisition involved from the side of the Respondent. The meaning of the word perquisite for the instant case is given under Section 17(2) of the IT Act. The Revenue alternatively contended that the case of the Respondent should come under

M/S. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,THIRTHAHALLI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) WARD, DAVANGERE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for assessment years 2011-12 to 2014-15 on the legal issue and the appeals for assessment years 2015-

ITA 508/BANG/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Chytanya KK, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. R Premi, JCIT (DR)
Section 10Section 133ASection 192Section 201Section 201(1)

capital gains arose to the Respondent on redemption of Stock Appreciation Rights since there was no cost of acquisition involved from the side of the Respondent. The meaning of the word perquisite for the instant case is given under Section 17(2) of the IT Act. The Revenue alternatively contended that the case of the Respondent should come under

M/S. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,DAVANGERE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) WARD, DAVANGERE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for assessment years 2011-12 to 2014-15 on the legal issue and the appeals for assessment years 2015-

ITA 520/BANG/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Chytanya KK, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. R Premi, JCIT (DR)
Section 10Section 133ASection 192Section 201Section 201(1)

capital gains arose to the Respondent on redemption of Stock Appreciation Rights since there was no cost of acquisition involved from the side of the Respondent. The meaning of the word perquisite for the instant case is given under Section 17(2) of the IT Act. The Revenue alternatively contended that the case of the Respondent should come under

M/S. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,THIRTHAHALLI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) WARD, DAVANGERE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for assessment years 2011-12 to 2014-15 on the legal issue and the appeals for assessment years 2015-

ITA 514/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jan 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Chytanya KK, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. R Premi, JCIT (DR)
Section 10Section 133ASection 192Section 201Section 201(1)

capital gains arose to the Respondent on redemption of Stock Appreciation Rights since there was no cost of acquisition involved from the side of the Respondent. The meaning of the word perquisite for the instant case is given under Section 17(2) of the IT Act. The Revenue alternatively contended that the case of the Respondent should come under

M/S. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,THIRTHAHALLI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) WARD, DAVANGERE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for assessment years 2011-12 to 2014-15 on the legal issue and the appeals for assessment years 2015-

ITA 509/BANG/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jan 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Chytanya KK, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. R Premi, JCIT (DR)
Section 10Section 133ASection 192Section 201Section 201(1)

capital gains arose to the Respondent on redemption of Stock Appreciation Rights since there was no cost of acquisition involved from the side of the Respondent. The meaning of the word perquisite for the instant case is given under Section 17(2) of the IT Act. The Revenue alternatively contended that the case of the Respondent should come under

M/S. LIFE INSRANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,THIRTHAHALLI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) WARD, DAVANGERE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for assessment years 2011-12 to 2014-15 on the legal issue and the appeals for assessment years 2015-

ITA 515/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jan 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Chytanya KK, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. R Premi, JCIT (DR)
Section 10Section 133ASection 192Section 201Section 201(1)

capital gains arose to the Respondent on redemption of Stock Appreciation Rights since there was no cost of acquisition involved from the side of the Respondent. The meaning of the word perquisite for the instant case is given under Section 17(2) of the IT Act. The Revenue alternatively contended that the case of the Respondent should come under

M/S. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA ,THIRTHAHALLI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) WARD, DAVANGERE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for assessment years 2011-12 to 2014-15 on the legal issue and the appeals for assessment years 2015-

ITA 517/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jan 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Chytanya KK, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. R Premi, JCIT (DR)
Section 10Section 133ASection 192Section 201Section 201(1)

capital gains arose to the Respondent on redemption of Stock Appreciation Rights since there was no cost of acquisition involved from the side of the Respondent. The meaning of the word perquisite for the instant case is given under Section 17(2) of the IT Act. The Revenue alternatively contended that the case of the Respondent should come under