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.

1,624 results for “capital gains”+ Section 6(1)(iii)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai4,539Delhi3,687Bangalore1,624Chennai1,320Kolkata1,095Ahmedabad945Jaipur720Hyderabad620Pune479Surat415Chandigarh387Karnataka378Indore353Cochin243Raipur213Visakhapatnam179Rajkot147Nagpur133Cuttack105Agra98Lucknow94Amritsar91Guwahati85SC76Telangana75Calcutta70Panaji62Jodhpur38Dehradun31Ranchi29Patna24Allahabad18Varanasi14Jabalpur14Kerala12Rajasthan6Punjab & Haryana4Orissa4A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2Andhra Pradesh2A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1Gauhati1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1

Key Topics

Addition to Income59Section 143(3)57Section 14852Section 133A34Section 153A33Disallowance33Section 10A31Deduction30Section 201(1)28

M/S. MEDI ASSIST INSURANCE TPA PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-12(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1933/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Medi Assist Insurance Tpa Pvt. Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner Of Tower ‘D’, 4Th Floor, Ibc Income-Tax, Knowledge Park, 4/1 Bannerghatta Vs. Circle - 4(1)(2), Main Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru-560 029. Pan –Aaccm 8044 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Prabhu, C.A Revenue By : Shri Sumeer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 10.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.02.2022 O R D E R Per Beena Pillaithis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)- 4, Bangalore Dated 22/3/2018 For The Asst. Year 2011-12 For Computing The Short Term Capital Gain At Rs.7,80,38,353/-. 2. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Before Us “(I) On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned Dcit & Cit(A) Erred In Computing The Short Term Capital Gain At Rs.7,80,38,353/- By Adding The Negative Net-Worth Instead Of Restricting The Same To Nil As Deeded Cost, Since Cost Cannot Be A Negative Value Page 2 Of 19

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Prabhu, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sumeer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 50B

1 Secured loans 6 5 5 2 Unsecured loans and other Liabilities 9 B Total liabilities 15 15 15 A - B Net (-)5 93 90 17.9 From the above table it can be seen that the full value of consideration received or accruing to the assessee from the transfer of undertaking (All assets minus All liabilities) is `90. Further

Showing 1–20 of 1,624 · Page 1 of 82

...
Section 20125
Section 14725
Survey u/s 133A17

SREENIVASULU SAGALETI,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2493/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuandshri.Keshav Dubeyassessment Year :2018-19

For Appellant: Shri. Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 54FSection 54F(1)Section 54F(4)

6 of 16 "54F. (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (4), where, in the case of an assessee being an individual or a Hindu undivided family, the capital gain arises from the transfer of any long- term capital asset, not being a residential house (hereafter in this section referred to as the original asset), and the assessee

M/S. RMZ HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 954/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 234Section 255Section 255(3)Section 36

6) It must be grasped that the judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalise injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so. 3.2 When substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other

ACIT, BANGALORE vs. SHRI. PRASHANTH PRAKASH, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed, while the Cross Objection by assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 864/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jun 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri H.N. Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri P. Dhivahar, Jt. CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 54F

1) declares that when the assessee sells any long- term capital asset, the assessee should purchase the building within one year before the transfer or within two years after the transfer by investing capital gains. In which event the assessee will not be liable for capital gain tax. Section 54(2) declares that within one year from the date

GOBINDRAM CHANDRAMANI VIVEK,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD 1(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in the manner indicated in this order

ITA 656/BANG/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Mrs. Beena Pillai & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Sh. Ashok A Kulkarni, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 54Section 54(2)Section 54F

6. The ld. JCIT-DR for the Revenue, on the other hand, vehemently argued that no deduction u/s 54 can be allowed to the assessee as it has not filed his return of income within the due date as prescribed under section 139(1), and rather return of income was filed belatedly under Section 139(4). It was submitted that

SUNITA MADHOK ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 555/BANG/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H.N. Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Smt. H. Kabila, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 234BSection 69

section 147 of the Income-tax Act.” 69. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. SPL'S Siddhartha Ltd. [2012] 345 ITR 223 (DELHI) held as under:- “8. Thus, if authority is given expressly by affirmative words upon a defined condition, the expression of that condition excludes the doing of the Act authorised under other

SUNITA MADHOK ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 554/BANG/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H.N. Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Smt. H. Kabila, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 234BSection 69

section 147 of the Income-tax Act.” 69. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. SPL'S Siddhartha Ltd. [2012] 345 ITR 223 (DELHI) held as under:- “8. Thus, if authority is given expressly by affirmative words upon a defined condition, the expression of that condition excludes the doing of the Act authorised under other

ADDL/JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (LTU) , BANGALORE vs. M/S VIJAYA BANK , BANGALORE

Accordingly the grounds raised by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 528/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Bank Of Baroda Vs. Addl. Cit, Ltu, (Erstwhile Vijaya Bank) Bmtc Building 7Th Floor, Central Accounts 6Th Block, Koramangala Bengaluru 560095 Dept., 41/2, M.G. Road Bengaluru 560001 Pan – Aaacvo3787 (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Circle - 2(1)(1) Vs. M/S. Bank Of Baroda Room No. 561, 5Th Floor (Erstwhile Vijaya Bank) Aayakar Bhavan 7Th Floor, Central Accounts M.K. Road Dept., 41/2, M.G. Road Mumbai 400020 Bengaluru 560001 Pan – Aaacvo3787 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ananthan, Ca& Smt. Lalitha Rameswaran, Ca Revenue By: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.04.2023 M/S. Bank Of Baroda

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan, CA&For Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 194JSection 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

6. There is no scope in IT Act to allow the provision of non rural branches advances u/s 36(1)(vii) of the IT Act and in the present case it was not bad debt write off of non rural branches. The assessee bank has made false submission in this regard before the AO to mislead the revenue

M/S VIJAYA BANK ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU , BANGALORE

Accordingly the grounds raised by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 321/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Bank Of Baroda Vs. Addl. Cit, Ltu, (Erstwhile Vijaya Bank) Bmtc Building 7Th Floor, Central Accounts 6Th Block, Koramangala Bengaluru 560095 Dept., 41/2, M.G. Road Bengaluru 560001 Pan – Aaacvo3787 (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Circle - 2(1)(1) Vs. M/S. Bank Of Baroda Room No. 561, 5Th Floor (Erstwhile Vijaya Bank) Aayakar Bhavan 7Th Floor, Central Accounts M.K. Road Dept., 41/2, M.G. Road Mumbai 400020 Bengaluru 560001 Pan – Aaacvo3787 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ananthan, Ca& Smt. Lalitha Rameswaran, Ca Revenue By: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.04.2023 M/S. Bank Of Baroda

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan, CA&For Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 194JSection 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

6. There is no scope in IT Act to allow the provision of non rural branches advances u/s 36(1)(vii) of the IT Act and in the present case it was not bad debt write off of non rural branches. The assessee bank has made false submission in this regard before the AO to mislead the revenue

SMT.ANUPAMA NAGESH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 2288/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Mar 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri K.S. Nagesh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri AR.V.Sreenivasan, JCIT (D.R)
Section 54Section 54F

1) [Subject to the provisions of sub-section (4), where, in the case of an assessee being an individual or a Hindu undivided family], the capital gain arises from the transfer of any long-term capital asset, not being a residential house (hereafter in this section referred to as the original asset), and the assessee has, within a period

M/S. CENTURY SILICON CITY,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2)(1, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 1101/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, D.R
Section 143(3)

section 36(1)(iii), as the expenditure was not laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. 3.2 Same is the position in the case of M/s. Century Silicon City, Bangalore. Against this, assessees carried on appeals before the ld. CIT(A) in all these assessment years. The ld. CIT(A) observed that there is no economic rationale

CENTURY SHELTORS,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 1073/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, D.R
Section 143(3)

section 36(1)(iii), as the expenditure was not laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. 3.2 Same is the position in the case of M/s. Century Silicon City, Bangalore. Against this, assessees carried on appeals before the ld. CIT(A) in all these assessment years. The ld. CIT(A) observed that there is no economic rationale

CENTURY SHELTORS,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 1074/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, D.R
Section 143(3)

section 36(1)(iii), as the expenditure was not laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. 3.2 Same is the position in the case of M/s. Century Silicon City, Bangalore. Against this, assessees carried on appeals before the ld. CIT(A) in all these assessment years. The ld. CIT(A) observed that there is no economic rationale

CENTURY SHELTORS,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 1075/BANG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, D.R
Section 143(3)

section 36(1)(iii), as the expenditure was not laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. 3.2 Same is the position in the case of M/s. Century Silicon City, Bangalore. Against this, assessees carried on appeals before the ld. CIT(A) in all these assessment years. The ld. CIT(A) observed that there is no economic rationale

M/S. CENTURY SILICON CITY,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2)(1, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 1100/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, D.R
Section 143(3)

section 36(1)(iii), as the expenditure was not laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. 3.2 Same is the position in the case of M/s. Century Silicon City, Bangalore. Against this, assessees carried on appeals before the ld. CIT(A) in all these assessment years. The ld. CIT(A) observed that there is no economic rationale

M/S. CENTURY SILICON CITY,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2)(1, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 1102/BANG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, D.R
Section 143(3)

section 36(1)(iii), as the expenditure was not laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. 3.2 Same is the position in the case of M/s. Century Silicon City, Bangalore. Against this, assessees carried on appeals before the ld. CIT(A) in all these assessment years. The ld. CIT(A) observed that there is no economic rationale

NABHIRAJ RATNA BALRAJ BY LEGAL HEIR B.R.RAKESH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 603/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Ms. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 50C

6) and (7) of section 23A, sub-section (5) of section 24, section 34AA, section 35 and section 37 of the Wealth- tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957), shall, with necessary modifications, apply in relation to such reference as they apply in relation to a reference made by the Assessing Officer under sub-section (1) of section 16A of that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 3041/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita Nos. 3040 & 3041/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Coffee Day Global Limited, Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(3), No.23/2, Coffeeday Square, 3Rd Floor, C.R. Building, Vittal Mallya Road, Queen’S Road, Bengaluru-560 001. Bengaluru-560 001. [Pan: Aabca 5291P]

Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 43A

1,44,98,726 - 2006-2007 - 62,65,130 2007-2008 4,41,20,801 - 2008-2009 6,90,51,525 - 2009-2010 - 14,49,92,136 2010-2011 10,91,42,862 - 2011-2012 6,20,65,764 - 2012-2013 - 39,32,28,754 2013-2014 - 20,02,41,512 I.T.A. Nos.3040 & 3041/Bang/2018 The Assessing Officer noticed that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 3040/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita Nos. 3040 & 3041/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Coffee Day Global Limited, Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(3), No.23/2, Coffeeday Square, 3Rd Floor, C.R. Building, Vittal Mallya Road, Queen’S Road, Bengaluru-560 001. Bengaluru-560 001. [Pan: Aabca 5291P]

Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 43A

1,44,98,726 - 2006-2007 - 62,65,130 2007-2008 4,41,20,801 - 2008-2009 6,90,51,525 - 2009-2010 - 14,49,92,136 2010-2011 10,91,42,862 - 2011-2012 6,20,65,764 - 2012-2013 - 39,32,28,754 2013-2014 - 20,02,41,512 I.T.A. Nos.3040 & 3041/Bang/2018 The Assessing Officer noticed that

M/S. KARNATAKA BANK LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CIRCLE- 2(1), MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1107/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K., Judciial Member Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan S. & Smt. Lalitha Rameswaran, CAsFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115JSection 14ASection 234BSection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40Section 41(4)

gainfully refer to the “MEMORANDUM EXPLAINING FINANCE BILL 2013”, which brings out the intention of the Parliament in inserting Explanation-2 in sec. 36(1)(vii) of the Act. It is extracted below:- “Clarification for amount to be eligible for deduction as bad debts in case of banks:- Under the existing provisions of section 36(1)(viia) of the Income