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.

3 results for “capital gains”+ Section 112Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai34Pune9Bangalore8Delhi5Chennai3Indore3Rajkot2Surat1Ahmedabad1Dehradun1Jaipur1Kolkata1Agra1

Key Topics

Section 87A22Section 111A6Section 115B5Section 143(1)4Section 23Capital Gains3Section 2502Section 112A2Disallowance2

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

capital gains and income from other sources. The assessee trust has filed its return of income for the relevant ITA. No:1087/Chny/2025 assessment year on 18.11.2021 declaring an income of Rs.82,21,860/-. An intimation u/s.143(1) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter the ‘Act’) dated 13.10.2022 was issued by considering surcharge at the rate of 37% on dividend income

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

capital gains. 5.11 The absence of a corresponding clause in section 111A is legally significant and supports the principle that – when the legislature intended to deny rebate in respect of special income (as in section 112A

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

capital gains under section 112A of the Act is only ₹.91,172/-, which is not in dispute by the ld. DR and we hold