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.

5 results for “capital gains”+ Section 271D(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Jaipur15Hyderabad14Visakhapatnam12Delhi8Chennai7Kolkata6Ahmedabad5Bangalore5Indore4Agra3Nagpur2Surat2Pune2Rajkot1Cuttack1Chandigarh1Mumbai1Patna1

Key Topics

Section 271D13Section 269S12Penalty5Section 1473Section 148A3Long Term Capital Gains3Section 542Section 273B2Section 2502

MAHESHWARAPPA MUNIRAMU,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE 2(2), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 757/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18 Maheshwarappa Muniramu #4261/17, 2Nd Cross, 20Th Main Subramanya Nagar Jcit Vs. Bengaluru 560 021 Range 2(2) Bangalore Pan No :Aempm8290C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Nagaraj K. H., Ca Respondent By : Sri Subramaniam, Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2025

For Appellant: Sri Nagaraj K. H., CAFor Respondent: Sri Subramaniam, JCIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 194ISection 244ASection 250Section 269SSection 271DSection 274

271D of the Act was issued to the assessee on 10.2.2022 by the ld. JCIT Range-2(2) Bangalore after a gap of approx 2 years 2 months from the date of concluding the assessment. On going through the submissions made before the authorities below, we take note of the fact that the assessee along with his son Shri

Section 143(3)2
Exemption2
Reassessment2

BOMMARABETTU MADHU SUDHANA ACHARYA ,UDUPI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 AND TPS, UDUPI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 937/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Ms. Pratibha R., A.RFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N., D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 269SSection 271DSection 274Section 54E

section 271D of the Act. Bommarabettu Madhusudhana Acharya, Bengaluru Page 2 of 13 3. Without prejudice, the ld. CIT(A) confirming the penalty ought to have appreciated that the provisions of Sec.269SS of the Act were not acceptable to the case of the appellant and consequently the penalty under sec 271 D was not exigible

MRS. SUREKHA L/R OF LATE SHRI. DEVARAJ ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(5), BANGALORE

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

ITA 910/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Respondent: Shri B.S. Balachandran
Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 234ASection 269SSection 271(1)(c)Section 271D

capital gains. 11. The CIT(A) and AO erred in initiating proceedings under section 271D of the Act for violation of section 269SS of the Act for receipt or Rs.19,20,000/- in cash without Page 3 of 7 appreciating that the amendment to section 269SS prohibiting receipt of any sum in cash in relation to transfer of immovable property

SRI. PADMANABHA MANGALORE CHOWTA,MANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RANGE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1147/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2017 – 18

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella VP Pavan Kumar, D.R
Section 269SSection 271Section 271DSection 273BSection 275

capital gain out of sale of the impugned property and paid the tax liability on it. The assessee’s case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS and completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act without any further addition. However, the penalty proceedings were invoked with regard to violation of section 269SS of the Act for receiving

SRI. GANGASHARA SHETTY, ,DAKSHINA KANNADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), MANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1633/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S. & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Sunaiana Bhatia, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R
Section 147Section 269SSection 271DSection 273BSection 54

2 of 5 file the true and correct affairs of his income. In response, the assessee submitted his return of income declaring total income as Nil. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee has earned long term capital gain amounting to Rs.29,29,238/-. The assessee claimed exemption of the entire long term capital gain