Search: capital gains | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

12 results for “capital gains”+ Section 55Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai166 Delhi63 Surat43 Ahmedabad32 Pune30 Kolkata30 Bangalore12 Chennai10 Raipur7 Cochin6 Rajkot6 Hyderabad6 Lucknow6 Indore5 Amritsar5 Chandigarh5 Jaipur5 Nagpur2 Agra2 SC2 Karnataka1 Cuttack1 Allahabad1

Key Topics

Section 548 Capital Gains8 Deduction7 Addition to Income7 Section 116 Section 50C5 Section 1485 Section 143(3)5 Section 143(1)5

DIVYA DINESH ,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2194/BANG/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2026AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Sudheendra B.R, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, JCIT

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 80G

Capital gains’ is determined as per sections 45 to 55A. Section 48 with the heading "Mode of computation" provides that

MR.RAHIL MAHESH KUMAR NIZAMUDDIN ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

Long Term Capital Gains4

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 892/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri K.Y. Ningoji Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V.S. Chakrapani, D.R

Section 48Section 54FSection 55A

Capital Gains from the Sale of 7 Acres 16.68 Guntas of Lands at Poojanahalli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bengaluru District, disregarding the fact that the proportionate sale value received by the Appellant is only Rs.18,54,25,000/-. 1,24,44,155/- 3 The Learned Appellate Commissioner ought to have upheld the Sale Consideration of Rs.13,38,43,718/- being the Sale

ROOPA JAGADISH ,MYSURU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), MYSURU

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

ITA 972/BANG/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Respondent: Shri B.S. Balachandran &

Section 144Section 147Section 234ASection 250Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 55A

55A of the Act when the cost of construction claimed by the Appellant was not acceptable. Page 3 of 8 C. CONSEQUENTIAL GROUNDS: 10. The CIT(A) and Ld AO erred in charging interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. 11. The CIT(A) and Ld AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section

SHRI. VADAGUR NARAYANAPPA PREMACHANDRA,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1032/BANG/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Balram R.Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sridhar .E, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 54

capital gains is eligible for exemption u/s. 54 of the Act for the reason that the new asset has been constructed after a period of 3 years from the date of transfer of the land under the JDA. 4. As against the order of the AO the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld CIT(A) and contended that

SRI MOHAN PURI ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-7(2)(2), BANGALORE

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

ITA 2925/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.R.E.Balasubramaniyan, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni. JCIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 48Section 54Section 69A

section 2(14) of the Act. Since in the foregoing paragraphs we have held that Rs.15 lakh is linked to the sale of capital asset, is to be 14 Late Mohan Puri (LR – Kunal Puri). brought to tax as income from long term capital gains. Therefore, the ground 5 raised by the assessee is rejected. 9.8 In the result, ground

VINAY KONCHADY SHENOY ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(1), , BANGALORE

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

ITA 455/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh .C, CA

Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234ASection 54Section 55A

55A of the I.T. Act and proceeding to compute the Long Term Capital Gains adopting alleged guidance value as deemed consideration as the Appellant has clearly mentioned that the he has obtained the Valuation report dated 20.11.2020 from the Registered Valuer. 4. The Appellant objects the levy Interest u/s. 234A B and C consequent to above addition. 5. The Appellant

PRITHVIRAJ LEKKAD MALLIKARJUN,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(2)(1), BENGALURU

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

ITA 1050/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Prashanth, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 226(3)Section 50CSection 54Section 55(2)(b)Section 55A

55A of the Act to arrive at the Fair Market Value as on 01.04.2001 under the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The learned authorities below ought to have 2611416 allowed the transfer expenses amounting to Rs.84,86,361/- incurred by the appellant towards sale of property under the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. a) The appellant

SRI. ABDUL AZEEZ,BELLARY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, BELLARY

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

ITA 747/BANG/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Hemanth N.P., AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR

Section 50CSection 50C(2)

capital gains (DVO’s report dated 29.03.2019). The CIT(A), however, rejected the appeal of the assessee by observing that there was non-cooperation on the part of the assessee, consequently, the valuation report could not be filed within the time limit for completing the assessment. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. Copy

YOUSUFF HAMEEDA BANU,BELLARY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, BELLARY

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

ITA 746/BANG/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Feb 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Hemath N.P., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Revenue

capital gains. Once the AO had referred the matter to the Valuation Officer, the onus was on the assessee to timely submit the details before him. However, the assessee not to discharge this onus so as to prevent the Valuation Officer from sending the report. Since the failure to get the valuation report was due to failure on part

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS) WARD-1 , MANGALURU vs. M/S MEDICAL RELIEF SOCIETY OF SOUTH KANARA , MANIPAL

In the result, the appeals of the revenue for AY 2008-09 and 2010-11 are partly allowed and the appeal relating to AY 2009-10 is allowed

ITA 160/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Oct 2019AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)For Respondent: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, Advocate

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 45

gains as computed u/s 45 to 55A. For this purpose, the Ld CIT(A) relied upon the decision rendered by the co-ordinate bench in the case of Al-Ameen Educational Society (ITA No.575 (B)/2011). 7. The first issue relates to the claim of repayment of loan as application of income. The Ld D.R submitted that the assessee

VAZHOOR SUDARSANAN THAMPI,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), WARD-2(1), BENGALURU

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 893/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan Ka. Y. 2015-16 Appellant Respondent Vazhoor Sudarshanan The Income Tax Officer Thampi International Taxation Vazhoor House, Ward 2 (1) T C 5/1892Valappad Bangalore Vallapad Beach Thrissur Kerala 680567 Pan Afxpt6193D For Appellant Shri Sidhesh N Gadi, Ca For Respondent Dr. Divya K J Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 19-08-2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28-08-2025

Section 142Section 143Section 144Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69

gain earned. He submits that the sum of Rs. 1,81,03,143/– is the undisputed sale consideration received by the assessee which was deposited in the non-resident external account with the federal bank received from the buyer Dr Gopalan. Out of that sum the sum of Rs 1,60,00,000/- was deposited for opening non-resident external

A.SHAMA RAO FOUNDATION ,MANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1 , MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1165/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan, Vice Presidnet & Shri B.R Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri Balram R Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)

gains as computed u/s 45 to 55A. For this purpose, the Ld CIT(A) relied upon the decision rendered by the co-ordinate bench in the case of Al- Ameen Educational Society (ITA No.575 (B)/2011). 7. The first issue relates to the claim of repayment of loan as application of income. The Ld D.R submitted that the assessee