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.

26 results for “capital gains”+ Section 928clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai120Delhi88Ahmedabad30Bangalore26Kolkata24Pune16Jaipur16Chennai15Hyderabad14Chandigarh13Visakhapatnam7Cuttack7Cochin6Guwahati5Indore3Surat3Karnataka2Panaji2Dehradun1Raipur1Ranchi1SC1Patna1Nagpur1

Key Topics

Section 14A33Addition to Income19Section 143(3)18Deduction16Disallowance16Section 4015Section 133A15Section 13115Section 10A15

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S VECTRA CONSULTING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 376/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri S. Parthasarathi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Priscilla Singsit, CIT (DR)

capital gains is required to be taxed but also the business profit/loss consequent to sale of stock-in-trade has to be computed as per the Page 6 of 8 provisions of section 28 of the Act. Accordingly, the business loss is computed by the appellant as under: sale proceeds received Rs.36,04,69,928

VINOD PRASAD INJETI ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, we reverse the orders of the ld

ITA 1252/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore

Showing 1–20 of 26 · Page 1 of 2

Section 5714
Comparables/TP13
Section 36(1)(iii)10
22 Nov 2024
AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Smt. Jyothi Anumolu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234A

section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act which are consequential to the above impugned additions. 10. The Appellant craves leave to add, rescind, modify the grounds hereinabove and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other.” 3. The only dispute involved in this appeal is non-granting of cost of construction to the assessee of a property

M/S.DEVON PLANTATIONS & INDUSTRIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1940/BANG/2016[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Nov 2017AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri. Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri. H. N. Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri. M. K. Biju, JCIT
Section 14A

section 14A r.w. Rule 8D, is given below : AY 2007-08 AY 2008-09 AY 2009-10 AY 2010-11 Share capital 29,75,290 29,75,290 29,75,290 29,75,290 Reserve and 5,14,87,589 5,73,29,398 6,66,76,749 8,28,24,073 surplus Secured loans

M/S TALLY SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

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

ITA 1364/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Aug 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Sonde, Senior CounselFor Respondent: Smt. Neera Malhotra, CIT-II (D.R)
Section 143(3)Section 928Section 92C

Gains of Business or Profession" do not refer to or include the amounts computed under chapter X. (iii) there is no provision in chapter X indicating that it would override the computation provisions of business income or the normal understanding of the term "income". 4. GROUNDS ON DETERMINATION OF ARMS LENGTH PRICE & ADJUSTMENT MADE THEREON The learned Assessing Officer

KSHEMA TECHNOLOGIES (SINCE MERGED WITH MPHASIS LTD),BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical

ITA 1105/BANG/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Apr 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Neera Malhotra, CIT-II (D.R)
Section 92CSection 92C(3)

928,569. 17. INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234D OF THE ACT The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the levy of interest under section 234D of the Act amounting to Rs. 128.352. 18. PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) The learned CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to re-compute the penalty in view of the enhanced total

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee as well as by revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 809/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.735/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Sreenivas T. Bidari, D.R
Section 11Section 14ASection 194JSection 234BSection 40Section 80J

section 80JJAA being disallowed. 17.1. The Ld.AR submitted that copy of the Audit report under section 80JJAA, being Form No. 10DA was submitted to the Ld.AO vide submission dated 28.5.2014. The Ld.AO thereafter called upon assessee to justify the allowability of deduction under section 80JJAA. The assessee explained in detail as to why deduction under section 80JJAA should be allowed

M/S INFOSYS LTD ,BANGALOR E vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee as well as by revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 735/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.735/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Sreenivas T. Bidari, D.R
Section 11Section 14ASection 194JSection 234BSection 40Section 80J

section 80JJAA being disallowed. 17.1. The Ld.AR submitted that copy of the Audit report under section 80JJAA, being Form No. 10DA was submitted to the Ld.AO vide submission dated 28.5.2014. The Ld.AO thereafter called upon assessee to justify the allowability of deduction under section 80JJAA. The assessee explained in detail as to why deduction under section 80JJAA should be allowed

GMR POWER CORPORATION LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ADDL.C.I.T., BANGALORE

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

ITA 1507/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 May 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT-III (D.R)
Section 57Section 80Section 80I

gain on settlement of the contract amounting to Rs.17,528,315 has been credited to the profit and loss account. There are no other outstanding derivative contracts as at the balance sheet date.” 5.5.2 The construction and development of Forum Value Mall’ was in the initial stage of development where the loan of Rs.81.30 Crores was borrowed from JP Morgan

M/S VVD CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, ITA No.3384/Bang/2018 is allowed, while ITA Nos

ITA 3388/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Guruswamy, ITPFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 36(1)(iii)

section 131 of the Act without appreciating the fact that the AO was not entitled to issue summons u/s. 131 of the Act, after the Survey in the absence of any evidence as to the refusal and evasive attitude of the Appellant in the course of the Survey. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have not confirmed the addition

M/S VVD CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, ITA No.3384/Bang/2018 is allowed, while ITA Nos

ITA 3386/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Guruswamy, ITPFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 36(1)(iii)

section 131 of the Act without appreciating the fact that the AO was not entitled to issue summons u/s. 131 of the Act, after the Survey in the absence of any evidence as to the refusal and evasive attitude of the Appellant in the course of the Survey. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have not confirmed the addition

M/S VVD CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, ITA No.3384/Bang/2018 is allowed, while ITA Nos

ITA 3384/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Guruswamy, ITPFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 36(1)(iii)

section 131 of the Act without appreciating the fact that the AO was not entitled to issue summons u/s. 131 of the Act, after the Survey in the absence of any evidence as to the refusal and evasive attitude of the Appellant in the course of the Survey. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have not confirmed the addition

M/S VVD CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, ITA No.3384/Bang/2018 is allowed, while ITA Nos

ITA 3387/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Guruswamy, ITPFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 36(1)(iii)

section 131 of the Act without appreciating the fact that the AO was not entitled to issue summons u/s. 131 of the Act, after the Survey in the absence of any evidence as to the refusal and evasive attitude of the Appellant in the course of the Survey. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have not confirmed the addition

M/S VVD CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, ITA No.3384/Bang/2018 is allowed, while ITA Nos

ITA 3385/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Guruswamy, ITPFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 36(1)(iii)

section 131 of the Act without appreciating the fact that the AO was not entitled to issue summons u/s. 131 of the Act, after the Survey in the absence of any evidence as to the refusal and evasive attitude of the Appellant in the course of the Survey. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have not confirmed the addition

GMR POWER CORPORATION LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal viz

ITA 1072/BANG/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijay Pal Rao & M/S.Gmr Power Corporation Ltd. 25/1, Skip House, Museum Road, Bangalore. … Appellant Pan:Aaacg 6037 G Vs. 1. Addl.Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Range-11, Bangalore. 2. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 3(1)(2), Bangalore … Respondent & (By The Revenue) ******** Assessee By: Shri Yogesh A Thar, Ca. Revenue By: Smt.Neera Malhotra, Cit(Dr).

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh A Thar, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 57Section 57(111)

capital gains. • S Balan V DCIT (308 ITR 151) (Pune) (AT) • CIT V Mithlesh Kumari (92 ITR 9) (Del) • Addl CIT V K S Gupta (119 ITR 372) (AP) • CIT V Maithreyi Pai (152 ITR 247) (Karn) • CIT V Indian Overseas Bank Ltd (222 ITR 77) (Mad) 4.2 The appellant humbly prays that the Assessing Officer be directed

GMR POWER CORPORATION LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ADDL.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal viz

ITA 1556/BANG/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijay Pal Rao & M/S.Gmr Power Corporation Ltd. 25/1, Skip House, Museum Road, Bangalore. … Appellant Pan:Aaacg 6037 G Vs. 1. Addl.Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Range-11, Bangalore. 2. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 3(1)(2), Bangalore … Respondent & (By The Revenue) ******** Assessee By: Shri Yogesh A Thar, Ca. Revenue By: Smt.Neera Malhotra, Cit(Dr).

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh A Thar, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 57Section 57(111)

capital gains. • S Balan V DCIT (308 ITR 151) (Pune) (AT) • CIT V Mithlesh Kumari (92 ITR 9) (Del) • Addl CIT V K S Gupta (119 ITR 372) (AP) • CIT V Maithreyi Pai (152 ITR 247) (Karn) • CIT V Indian Overseas Bank Ltd (222 ITR 77) (Mad) 4.2 The appellant humbly prays that the Assessing Officer be directed

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S GMR POWER CORPORATION LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS GMR POWER CORPORATION PVT. LTD.,), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal viz

ITA 1629/BANG/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijay Pal Rao & M/S.Gmr Power Corporation Ltd. 25/1, Skip House, Museum Road, Bangalore. … Appellant Pan:Aaacg 6037 G Vs. 1. Addl.Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Range-11, Bangalore. 2. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 3(1)(2), Bangalore … Respondent & (By The Revenue) ******** Assessee By: Shri Yogesh A Thar, Ca. Revenue By: Smt.Neera Malhotra, Cit(Dr).

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh A Thar, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 57Section 57(111)

capital gains. • S Balan V DCIT (308 ITR 151) (Pune) (AT) • CIT V Mithlesh Kumari (92 ITR 9) (Del) • Addl CIT V K S Gupta (119 ITR 372) (AP) • CIT V Maithreyi Pai (152 ITR 247) (Karn) • CIT V Indian Overseas Bank Ltd (222 ITR 77) (Mad) 4.2 The appellant humbly prays that the Assessing Officer be directed

CONCUR TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(2)(1), BANGALORE

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 2550/BANG/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayan, CAFor Respondent: Dr Divya K J, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 144Section 144BSection 144C

928 of the Act. 10.3.Without prejudice to Appellant contentions that the outstanding receivables should not be treated as a separate international transaction, even where the learned AO/ TPO has alleged it to be separate international transaction, the learned AO/ TPO erred in law and facts by only computing the interest on trade receivable from AE and not taking into consideration

ITO, MANGALORE vs. DR. U. KRISHNA MUNIYAL MEMORIAL TRUST, MANIPAL

In the result, the CO by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 140/BANG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jul 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Gurunathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Jt. CIT(DR)
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 12A

928 as per the return has been claimed as carry forward to AY 2012-13 and the assessee has also claimed brought forward unabsorbed expenses of earlier years of Rs.1,15,42,645. The AO was of the view that the Income-tax Act does not specify that the assessee trust is entitled to the benefit of either carry forward

NXP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 264/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V S Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 92C

section 234B of the Act 6. Ground No. 1 and 2 being general does not warrant separate adjudication. Ground No.14 is not pressed and hence dismissed as not pressed. Ground No.15 & and 16 are consequential. Out of the 8 grounds raised for TP adjustment, the assessee vide Ground No.7 (a) Page 4 of 24 sought exclusion of 13 companies from

ACIT vs. M/S COASTAL ROAWAYS,

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed and the CO is partly allowed

ITA 1139/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jan 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoasst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 1(1), Mangalore. … Appellant Vs. M/S. Coastal Roadways, D.No.4-64/11, Bantwal Chambers, Balikampady, Mangalore. … Respondent Pan:Aaffc 5977 M Cross Objn.No.35/Bang/2013 (In Ita No.1139/Bang/2013) (Assessment Year: 2008-09) (By The Assessee) ****** Revenue By: Dr. P.K.Srihari, Addl.Cit. Assessee By: Shri R.E.Balasubramaniyan, Ca. Date Of Hearing : 05/01/2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 08/01/2016 O R D E R Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri R.E.Balasubramaniyan, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.K.Srihari, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

gains of business or profession under the proposed sub-section (3A) of section 40A, as the case may be. To illustrate with an example, let us assume a taxpayer has incurred an expenditure of Rs 40,000/-. The taxpayer makes separate payments of Rs 15,000/-, Rs 16,000/- and Rs 9,000/- all by cash, to the person concerned