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.

8 results for “capital gains”+ Section 46Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi123Mumbai105Jaipur52Chennai40Hyderabad38Ahmedabad29Surat21Kolkata20Pune17Indore13Lucknow11Chandigarh11Panaji9Nagpur8Bangalore8Visakhapatnam7Rajkot7Raipur6Amritsar5Patna5Cuttack4Ranchi4Jabalpur2Jodhpur2Dehradun2Cochin2Guwahati1

Key Topics

Section 54F15Section 5410Section 143(3)8Addition to Income7Section 1486Capital Gains6Deduction6Section 1474Long Term Capital Gains

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELLARY, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELLARY vs. M/S VIRGO PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1181/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Nov 2025AY 2013-14
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

46A of the IT Rules?\n(D) Appellant craves leave to modify, amend or revise the above grounds of appeal\nand add further grounds of appeal, if necessary.\nITA No.1181/Bang/2025\nPage 2 of 21\n2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that assessee company is in the\nbusiness of property development, filed return of income on 29.03.2013\nadmitting income

PRAKASH BARE,BENGALURU vs. DCIT CIRCLE 2(2)(1), KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU

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

ITA 1030/BANG/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore
3
Section 148A2
Section 142(1)2
Section 69A2
29 Jul 2025
AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year :2020-21

For Appellant: Shri. B. N. Pattabhi, CAFor Respondent: Shri. R. Rajamanohar, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

capital gain. 3. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the learned CIT(A). During the appellate proceedings, assessee submitted detailed written submissions along with the documentary evidence in support of his submissions and filed evidences. However, the learned CIT(A) did not accept the evidence filed by the assessee and applied Rule 46A observing that the assessee

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(3), BENGALURU vs. UMA RUGMINI, BENGALURU

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

ITA 2100/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Sathvik, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 271FSection 54

section (3) of rule 46A of Income tax rules” 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a housewife and not filed her return of income. Based on the information through the INSIGHT PORTAL, the AO had issued notice u/s. 148 of the Act, seeking the details about the financial transactions undertaken by her. Before that

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SHRI MUNI REDDY SANTHOSH REDDY, BENGALURU

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

ITA 1009/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for RevenueFor Respondent: N o n e
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 54Section 54F

Capital Gains Account Scheme for the future utilization within the provisions of section 54F of the Act. There is no dispute that the investment in another plot was made of Rs. 30,00,000/- on 28/11/2015, but since the said amount had not been retained by the appellant in pursuance to the prescribed norm as provided

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(3)(2) , BANGALORE vs. SHRI. INDRAJEET GHORPADE, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 212/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri H. Guruswamy, ITP
Section 54F

46A cannot be invoked as no new documents has been filed by the assessee. We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in the light of records placed before us. 7. We note that, the Ld.CIT(A) in para 4, granted the benefit u/s. 54F at Rs. 4.70 crores on a capital gain declared at Rs. 5.20 crores

ALOK GYANCHAND KOTHARI,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-5(3)(2), BENGALURU

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

ITA 798/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 73

Section 250 of the Act dated 28/02/2024, in so far as it is against the Appellant is opposed to law, weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] and the learned assessing officer were not justified in not allowing the loss incurred by the appellant

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(3), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. PRAVEEN REDDY (HUF), BENGALURU

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

ITA 651/BANG/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Sri Prasanna N. Uralal, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Parithivel V., D.R
Section 250(6)Section 50Section 54Section 54F

capital gains. b) Whether in the present fact and circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) did not err in ruling that assessee is eligible for deduction claimed u/s 54F when no material is placed on records for fulfilling the conditions laid down as per section 54F. Praveen Reddy (HUF), Bangalore Page 2 of 4 c) Whether

HOSKOTE CHIKKEGOWDA MADEGOWDA ,MYSURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), MYSURU

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

ITA 19/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, CA
Section 115BSection 69A

46A of the IT Rules,1962 without appreciating that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause in producing the said additional evidence before the Assessing Officer under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 4.1 The learned CIT[A] ought to have appreciated that the cash deposits made are from known and explainable sources of funds