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.

21 results for “capital gains”+ Section 246Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi81Chennai67Mumbai40Indore35Bangalore21Pune18Kolkata17Jaipur15Panaji13Chandigarh13Surat11Ahmedabad8Hyderabad8Rajkot5Jodhpur3Agra2Raipur2SC2Patna1Visakhapatnam1

Key Topics

Section 13236Section 153A30Section 14318Section 200A18Section 246A17Section 80I15Addition to Income13Section 143(3)11Section 2346Capital Gains

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

246A provides for appellate remedy for different types of tax demands raised upon the assessee and there should not be any dispute that the assessees have been filing separate appeals for the demand raised under different sections of the Act. ITA Nos.583/Bang/2019, 299 & 407/Bang/2020 Page 10 of 43 4.12 In the case of Genpact India

Showing 1–20 of 21 · Page 1 of 2

6
Search & Seizure6
Disallowance6

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

246A provides for appellate remedy for different types of tax demands raised upon the assessee and there should not be any dispute that the assessees have been filing separate appeals for the demand raised under different sections of the Act. ITA Nos.583/Bang/2019, 299 & 407/Bang/2020 Page 10 of 43 4.12 In the case of Genpact India

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

246A provides for appellate remedy for different types of tax demands raised upon the assessee and there should not be any dispute that the assessees have been filing separate appeals for the demand raised under different sections of the Act. ITA Nos.583/Bang/2019, 299 & 407/Bang/2020 Page 10 of 43 4.12 In the case of Genpact India

K.S. GUNDAPPA SHETTY (HUF),BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(2), BENGALURU

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2911/BANG/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

For Appellant: Shri V. Chandrasekhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri L.V. Bhaskar Reddy, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 246A

section 246A[1] of the Act, on the facts and circumstances of the ITA Nos. 2909 to 2911/Bang/2017 Page 2 of 6 case. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] and the learned Assessing officer ought to have appreciated that the said transactions of the AOP has been offered by the appellant in its return of income

K.S. GUNDAPPA SHETTY (HUF),BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(2), BENGALURU

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2910/BANG/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

For Appellant: Shri V. Chandrasekhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri L.V. Bhaskar Reddy, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 246A

section 246A[1] of the Act, on the facts and circumstances of the ITA Nos. 2909 to 2911/Bang/2017 Page 2 of 6 case. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] and the learned Assessing officer ought to have appreciated that the said transactions of the AOP has been offered by the appellant in its return of income

K.S. GUNDAPPA SHETTY (HUF),BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(2), BENGALURU

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2909/BANG/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

For Appellant: Shri V. Chandrasekhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri L.V. Bhaskar Reddy, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 246A

section 246A[1] of the Act, on the facts and circumstances of the ITA Nos. 2909 to 2911/Bang/2017 Page 2 of 6 case. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] and the learned Assessing officer ought to have appreciated that the said transactions of the AOP has been offered by the appellant in its return of income

ALOK KUMAR JAIN,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 439/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Balaji V., CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, Jt.CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 246A

246A of the Act and not for condonation of delay in filing of Form 67. The decision sought by the Appellant from the Ld. ADDL/JCIT(A) was: • Whether FTC can be denied for delay in filing of Form 67 beyond the due date of filing of Return of Income under Section 139(1) of the Act, in view of several

KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2019-20 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2220/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri A.C. Raju, CAFor Respondent: Shri Netrapal M.S., Addl.CIT (DR)
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)

capital gain. The above amount has also been taxed by the ld. AO in the tax computation sheet. As the assessee found that it is an error on the part of the assessee as well as on the part of the AO in offering the above amount and taxing the above amount respectively, despite statutory provisions exempting it. The assessee

KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(3)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2019-20 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2221/BANG/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jan 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri A.C. Raju, CAFor Respondent: Shri Netrapal M.S., Addl.CIT (DR)
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)

capital gain. The above amount has also been taxed by the ld. AO in the tax computation sheet. As the assessee found that it is an error on the part of the assessee as well as on the part of the AO in offering the above amount and taxing the above amount respectively, despite statutory provisions exempting it. The assessee

KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(3)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2019-20 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2219/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri A.C. Raju, CAFor Respondent: Shri Netrapal M.S., Addl.CIT (DR)
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)

capital gain. The above amount has also been taxed by the ld. AO in the tax computation sheet. As the assessee found that it is an error on the part of the assessee as well as on the part of the AO in offering the above amount and taxing the above amount respectively, despite statutory provisions exempting it. The assessee

WILFRED D'SOUZA,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 327/BANG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, D.R
Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 246A

246A of the Act. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] vide his appellate order dated 22/02/2022 for all the six assessment years, dismissed the appeal preferred by the assessee. 3.3 The assessee being aggrieved by the appellate order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals], has preferred these present appeals before this Tribunal. The assessee wishes

WILFRED D'SOUZA,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 325/BANG/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, D.R
Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 246A

246A of the Act. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] vide his appellate order dated 22/02/2022 for all the six assessment years, dismissed the appeal preferred by the assessee. 3.3 The assessee being aggrieved by the appellate order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals], has preferred these present appeals before this Tribunal. The assessee wishes

WILFRED D'SOUZA,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 326/BANG/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, D.R
Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 246A

246A of the Act. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] vide his appellate order dated 22/02/2022 for all the six assessment years, dismissed the appeal preferred by the assessee. 3.3 The assessee being aggrieved by the appellate order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals], has preferred these present appeals before this Tribunal. The assessee wishes

WILFRED D'SOUZA,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 324/BANG/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, D.R
Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 246A

246A of the Act. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] vide his appellate order dated 22/02/2022 for all the six assessment years, dismissed the appeal preferred by the assessee. 3.3 The assessee being aggrieved by the appellate order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals], has preferred these present appeals before this Tribunal. The assessee wishes

WILFRED D'SOUZA,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 323/BANG/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, D.R
Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 246A

246A of the Act. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] vide his appellate order dated 22/02/2022 for all the six assessment years, dismissed the appeal preferred by the assessee. 3.3 The assessee being aggrieved by the appellate order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals], has preferred these present appeals before this Tribunal. The assessee wishes

WILFRED D'SOUZA,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 328/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, D.R
Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 246A

246A of the Act. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] vide his appellate order dated 22/02/2022 for all the six assessment years, dismissed the appeal preferred by the assessee. 3.3 The assessee being aggrieved by the appellate order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals], has preferred these present appeals before this Tribunal. The assessee wishes

HEWLETT PACKARD GLOBALSOFT PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

ITA 162/BANG/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri T.Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs Neera Malhotra, CIT-II
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 250Section 263

capital gains liable for taxation had been omitted or not? while completing the original assessment and it omitted to add the same in the set aside assessment thus giving a latitude to the AO which is capable of being questioned in an appeal before the CIT(A). In this case it can be inferred, from the learned CIT's order

YESHWANTHRAJ RANKA,BANGALORE vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)- 7, BANGALORE

In the result, these three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1844/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jun 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri. S. Vimal Chand Dhariwall, CAFor Respondent: Shri. K. N. Dhandapani, Addl. CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 200ASection 234Section 234ESection 246ASection 68

capital gains be accepted. The assessment of the amount U/s.68 be deleted and the interest also to be deleted, 3. In the course of hearing, it was submitted by learned AR of the assessee that the issue in dispute is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal order rendered in the case of Sibia Healthcare

YESHWANTHRAJ RANKA,BANGALORE vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)- 7, BANGALORE

In the result, these three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1843/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jun 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri. S. Vimal Chand Dhariwall, CAFor Respondent: Shri. K. N. Dhandapani, Addl. CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 200ASection 234Section 234ESection 246ASection 68

capital gains be accepted. The assessment of the amount U/s.68 be deleted and the interest also to be deleted, 3. In the course of hearing, it was submitted by learned AR of the assessee that the issue in dispute is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal order rendered in the case of Sibia Healthcare

YESHWANTHRAJ RANKA,BANGALORE vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)- 7, BANGALORE

In the result, these three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1842/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jun 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri. S. Vimal Chand Dhariwall, CAFor Respondent: Shri. K. N. Dhandapani, Addl. CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 200ASection 234Section 234ESection 246ASection 68

capital gains be accepted. The assessment of the amount U/s.68 be deleted and the interest also to be deleted, 3. In the course of hearing, it was submitted by learned AR of the assessee that the issue in dispute is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal order rendered in the case of Sibia Healthcare