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.

12 results for “capital gains”+ Section 111Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai180Delhi41Kolkata27Bangalore14Pune12Chennai12Ahmedabad11Indore9Hyderabad5Jaipur4Surat4Nagpur3Chandigarh2Telangana1Karnataka1Lucknow1Rajkot1Agra1

Key Topics

Section 111A22Section 87A22Section 26315Section 143(3)12Capital Gains12Section 115B10Short Term Capital Gains9Section 14A8Section 143(1)5Disallowance

M V SUBRAMANIAN FAMILY TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-1(1), CHENNAI

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

ITA 1087/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1087/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2021-22 M/S. M V Subramanian Family The Income Tax Officer, Trust, Non-Corporate Ward 1(1), 10, Valliammai Achi Road, Vs. Chennai. Kotturpuram, Chennai – 600 085. Pan: Aaetm 9151C (""यथ"/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Ashwin, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.07.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri Ashwin, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 111ASection 112ASection 143(1)Section 154Section 2Section 234BSection 234C
5
Revision u/s 2634
Section 23

capital gains and dividend income. 2.3 The Ld. Respondent erred in considering the surcharge at the rate of 37% by completely disregarding the provisions of the Finance Act, 2021, which imposes a cap of 15% on surcharge where the total income includes dividend income or incomes chargeable under sections 111A

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. GOPAL SRINIVASAN, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for 16

ITA 1423/CHNY/2016[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jan 2018AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathan

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Adv
Section 111A

capital gains of "71,85,696/- on which he paid tax at the rate of 10%. It seems assessee had applied the rate of 10% based on Section 111A

GOPAL SRINIVASAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for 16

ITA 948/CHNY/2016[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jan 2018AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathan

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Adv
Section 111A

capital gains of "71,85,696/- on which he paid tax at the rate of 10%. It seems assessee had applied the rate of 10% based on Section 111A

VENKEDAPATHY VENUGOPAL,COIMBATORE vs. ITO, NON CORP WE 2(1) COIMBATORE, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2064/CHNY/2025[2024-2025]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2025AY 2024-2025

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. Sanketh S. Nayak, C.A. (by Virtual)For Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl.C.I.T
Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 87A

111A. 5.10 By contrast, the legislature has inserted an express bar on availability of section 87A rebate in section 112A(6), which states: (6) Where the total income of an assessee includes any long-term capital gains

SESHANK MAHADEV,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC BENGALURU

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

ITA 2274/CHNY/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2274/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2024-25 Seshank Mahadev, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ak 27, Tas Enclave, E2, Golden King Corporate Ward 3(1), Villa Apartments, Anna Nagar, Chennai. Chennai 600 040. [Pan:Olwps5532Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Varadharajan, F/O Of Assessee ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C.P. Solomon, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 02.06.2025 Passed By The Addl./Jcit(A), Indore For The Assessment Year 2024-25. 2. At The Outset, We Note That The Cpc Denied The Rebate Claimed By The Assessee Under Section 87A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Vide Intimation Order Under Section 143(1) Of The Act Dated 12.11.2024. Against The Intimation Order, The Assessee Preferred An 2

For Appellant: Shri Varadharajan, F/o of assesseeFor Respondent: Shri C.P. Solomon, JCIT
Section 111ASection 112ASection 115BSection 143(1)Section 250Section 3Section 87A

gains arising from transfer of listed equity shares taxable at special rates under section 111A of the Act. Accordingly, we hold that the assessee is eligible for rebate under section 87A of the Act even though the income includes short term capital

NAVEENCHAND SUDHIR GOLECHA ,CHENNAI vs. ITO,NON-CORPORATE WARD-12(4), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 173/CHNY/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.173/Chny/2022 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Mr. Naveenchand Sudhir Golecha Vs The Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward-12(4) 40, Old No.13, Naveen Letangs Road, Nr.Csi Edwart School, Vepery Chennai. Chennai-600 007. Pan: Aagpg 2493M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT
Section 111ASection 263Section 44A

capital gain’ in terms of section 111A and levied 15% tax. Therefore, on the very same issue, there is no question

PACIFIC ORIENT COMPANY LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 5(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2591/CHNY/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jun 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2591/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2006-2007. M/S. Pacific Orient Company Ltd, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.20, Second Canal Cross Road, Vs. Income Tax, Gandhi Nagar, Adyar, Corporate Circle 5(1) Chennai 600 020. Chennai. [Pan Aaacp 3727C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sanath Kumar Raha, JCIT
Section 111ASection 271Section 271(1)

Section 111A of the Act and was eligible for concessional tax rate of 10%. However, as per the ld. Authorised Representative, ld. Assessing Officer had considered the surplus as business income and subjected the assessee to tax at maximum margin rate. As per the ld. Authorised Representative, though the Tribunal, on assessee’s appeal had confirmed the treatment

SALZER ELECTRONICS LIMITED ,COIMBATORE vs. PCIT , TAX - 1 , COIMBATORE

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

ITA 1102/CHNY/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Sept 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1102/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Salzer Electronics Limited, Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of First Floor, Samichettipalayam, Income Tax-1, Jothipuram S.O., Coimbatore North, Coimbatore. Coimbatore 641 047. [Pan:Aaecs3411L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate [Erode] ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.08.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.09.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Coimbatore-1, Coimbatore Dated 18.11.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2018-19 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate [Erode]For Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 111ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 2ASection 35

capital gains under section 111A of the Act, (ii) claim of any other amount allowable as deduction in Schedule BP, (iii) duty

DCIT, NCC 4(1), CHENNAI vs. SOHAN RAJ KHANTED GUVANTH RAJ, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1652/CHNY/2023[2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Aug 2024

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1652/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 V. The Dcit, Shri Sohan Raj Khanted Ncc-4(1), Gunvanth Raj, Chennai. 17, Krishna Iyer Street, Sowcarpet, Chennai-600 079. [Pan: Aafpk 9519 F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 111ASection 136Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

capital gain and take the benefit of the beneficial taxation regime provided by Section 111A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In addition

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, TRICHY vs. M/S MANGAL & MANGAL, TRICHY

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 772/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 772/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Mangal & Mangal, Income Tax, V. 25, N.S.B. Road, Teppakulam, Central Circle -2, Trichy – 620 002. No. 44, Williams Road, [Pan: Aaifm-3378-B] Cantonment, Trichy – 620 001. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Dr. R. Mohan Reddy, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.06.2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06.09.2023

For Appellant: Dr. R. Mohan Reddy, CITFor Respondent: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 111ASection 115BSection 143(2)Section 68

capital gains declared u/s. 111A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and expenses debited into profit and loss account for earning exempt income as per schedule BP of ITR is significantly lower when compared to investment made to earn exempt income. A notice u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act, was issued

MUKHUNDHAN GOPALAN,TRICHY vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), TRICHY

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

ITA 504/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 504/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mukhundhan Gopalan, The Asst. Commissioner Of B-901, Trichy Rich 104, Vs. Income Tax, Salai Road, Woraiyur Bazaar, Circle 1(1), Trichy – 620 003. Trichy. Pan: Aagpm 1974P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Murali, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Revision Order Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Madurai – 1 In Order No. Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2022-23/1050429409 (1) Dated 06.03.2023. The Assessment Was Framed By The Additional/ Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax/Income-Tax Officer, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19 U/S.143(3) R.W.S.143(3A) & 143(3B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Order Dated 19.10.2020. 2. The Only Issue In This Appeal Of Assessee Is Against The Revision Order Passed By The Pcit U/S.263 Of The Act Revising The Assessment Completed By Ao U/S.143(3) Of The Act Dated 19.10.2020 Without Making Enquiry In Regard To Expenses Relatable To Exempt Income U/S.14A R.W.Rule 8D(2)(Ii) Of The Income Tax Rules, 1962 (Hereinafter The ‘Rules’). For This, Assessee Has Raised Many Grounds Which Are Argumentative & Exhaustive & Hence, Need Not Be Reproduced.

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, CIT
Section 111ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

capital gains declared u/s 111A. Subsequently, the PCIT issued show-cause notice dated 14.02.2023 requiring the assessee as to why the expenses relatable to exempt income be not disallowed u/s.14A of the Act, for the reasons that the assessment was completed u/s.143(3) of the Act is erroneous insofar as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue u/s.263

INTEGRATED INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT SERVICES LLP,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NON COP. WARD1(2), CHENNAI

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

ITA 366/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Guru Bashyam, CIT(DR)
Section 111ASection 115BSection 14Section 142(2)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

capital gains declared u/s. 111A. ITA No: 366/Chny/2022 3.1 Accordingly, Assessing Officer after calling details vide notice u/s. 142(2) dated 23.07.2019 and 04.11.2019 examined the details and framed assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 16.12.2019. 4. Subsequently, PCIT issued show cause notice for revising the assessment framed by Assessing Officer by issuing notice