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.

4 results for “capital gains”+ Section 44Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai24Cuttack14Delhi12Lucknow5Bangalore4Indore3Patna2Chandigarh1Jaipur1Raipur1SC1Telangana1

Key Topics

Section 1110Section 271A8Section 2(15)6Section 143(3)4Section 44A3Exemption3Deduction3Set Off of Losses3Carry Forward of Losses3Section 148

SMT. VANI RAMACHANDRAN,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1057/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusmt. Vani Ramachandran Vs The Income Tax Officer-3(2)(1) 40, Vishram, 4Th Main Bmtc Building Kalyan Nagar Koramangala Bangalore 560072 Bangalore 560095 Pan – Ajtpr2276F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ravishankar S.V., Advocate Revenue By: Shri Gudimella Vp Pavan Kumar, Jcit Date Of Hearing: 14.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.03.2023 O R D E R Per: George George K., J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A) Dated 03.11.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Several Grounds & Also Additional Grounds. However, The Solitary Issue That Was Argued By The Learned A.R. Was Whether The Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Penalty Of Rs.25,000/- Imposed Under Section 271A Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar S.V., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella VP Pavan Kumar, JCIT
Section 144Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 271A
2
Section 69A2
Section 11(1)(a)2
Section 274
Section 44A
Section 69A

capital gains and other sources and there was no necessity to maintain books of account in terms of Section 44AA of the Act. Therefore, the learned A.R. submitted that the penalty imposed under Section 271A of the Act for non-maintenance of books of account as mandated under Section 44A

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU vs. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals filed by revenue are dismissed

ITA 577/BANG/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jan 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

section 11(1)(a) takes place in the year in which the income is adjusted to meet the expenses incurred for charitable or religious purpose. Hence even if the expenses for such purposes have been incurred in the earlier years and the said expenses are adjusted against the income of a subsequent year, the income of such subsequent year

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU vs. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals filed by revenue are dismissed

ITA 578/BANG/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

section 11(1)(a) takes place in the year in which the income is adjusted to meet the expenses incurred for charitable or religious purpose. Hence even if the expenses for such purposes have been incurred in the earlier years and the said expenses are adjusted against the income of a subsequent year, the income of such subsequent year

DCIT, UDUPI vs. M/S MANIPAL ACADEMY OF HIGHER EDUCATION, MANIPAL

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 658/BANG/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2015AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri Sajjan Kumar Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Farhat Hussain Qureshi, CIT-II
Section 268A

gains of business or profession". Net receipt after deducting all the necessary expenditure of the trust (sic). 14. There is a broad agreement on this proposition. But still the contention for the Revenue is that the depreciation allowance being a notional income (expenditure ?) cannot be allowed to be debited to the expenditure account of the trust. This contention appears