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.

188 results for “capital gains”+ Section 119clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai697Delhi652Bangalore292Chennai188Ahmedabad172Jaipur142Karnataka138Kolkata129Chandigarh115Indore88Raipur79Hyderabad76Pune76Cochin75Calcutta51Surat47Nagpur38Cuttack35Guwahati28Lucknow25Visakhapatnam23Rajkot17Agra14Telangana9SC8Ranchi7Varanasi5Jodhpur4Allahabad3Rajasthan3Amritsar2Jabalpur2Punjab & Haryana1Andhra Pradesh1Dehradun1

Key Topics

Section 26359Section 14A59Section 143(3)52Section 14836Section 14733Section 36(1)(viii)30Disallowance29Addition to Income22Section 153A18

AADARSH SURANA, CHENNAI,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1840/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Dec 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri. R.Venkata Raman, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 47Section 68

capital gains tax under section 45 of the Act. 118. However, the scheme of the Act does not end with section 45 of the Act. Section 47 of the Act provides a list of transactions which, though otherwise in the nature of transfer, are expressly excluded from being regarded as transfer for the purposes of section

Showing 1–20 of 188 · Page 1 of 10

...
Deduction17
Section 1115
Revision u/s 26311

SMT. BIMALA DEVI AGARWAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE3(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 422/CHNY/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 422/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri. D. Anand, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 263

capital gain transaction was not considered and examined at all while making the decision. In this regard, it is relevant to refer to the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax [2000] 243 TTR 83 (SC)2000] 109 Taxman 66 (SC) that an incorrect

SHRI VINOD BANSAL,CHENNAI vs. ACI-CENT. CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 445/CHNY/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkery, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 445/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Respondent: Shri. S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 263

capital gain transaction was not considered and examined at all while making the decision. In this regard, it is relevant to refer to the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax [2000] 243 TTR 83 (SC)2000] 109 Taxman 66 (SC) that an incorrect

SMT. SHOBA AGARWAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CENT CIRCLE 3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 421/CHNY/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 421/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Respondent: Shri. R. Mohan Reddy, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 263

capital gain transaction was not considered and examined at all while making the decision. In this regard, it is relevant to refer to the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax [2000] 243 TTR 83 (SC)2000] 109 Taxman 66 (SC) that an incorrect

PANKAJ AGARWAL,CHENNAI vs. PCIT , CHENAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 434/CHNY/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 434/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Respondent: Shri. S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 263

capital gain transaction was not considered and examined at all while making the decision. In this regard, it is relevant to refer to the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax [2000] 243 TTR 83 (SC)2000] 109 Taxman 66 (SC) that an incorrect

SMT.RITA AGARWAL ,CHENAI vs. PCIT , CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 433/CHNY/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 433/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Respondent: Shri. S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 263

capital gain transaction was not considered and examined at all while making the decision. In this regard, it is relevant to refer to the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax [2000] 243 TTR 83 (SC)2000] 109 Taxman 66 (SC) that an incorrect

ACIT,, CHENNAI vs. SRI. K.SRIKANTH,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

ITA 1324/CHNY/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2020AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

Section 147 will come into play and only tangible material is required to reopen the concluded assessment and there is no requirement of having fresh material to reopen concluded assessment. It was submitted that if audit objections is based on factual errors, then it can be a valid ground for reopening of the concluded assessment

SRI K.SRIKANTH,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

ITA 1016/CHNY/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2020AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

Section 147 will come into play and only tangible material is required to reopen the concluded assessment and there is no requirement of having fresh material to reopen concluded assessment. It was submitted that if audit objections is based on factual errors, then it can be a valid ground for reopening of the concluded assessment

SRI K.SRIKANTH,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

ITA 1015/CHNY/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2020AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

Section 147 will come into play and only tangible material is required to reopen the concluded assessment and there is no requirement of having fresh material to reopen concluded assessment. It was submitted that if audit objections is based on factual errors, then it can be a valid ground for reopening of the concluded assessment

SHRI K.SRIKANTH,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

ITA 307/CHNY/2010[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2020AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

Section 147 will come into play and only tangible material is required to reopen the concluded assessment and there is no requirement of having fresh material to reopen concluded assessment. It was submitted that if audit objections is based on factual errors, then it can be a valid ground for reopening of the concluded assessment

ANIL KUMAR GOEL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, Ground Nos

ITA 3142/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Aug 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

Section 10(38)Section 14Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14A

section 14 of the Act. 10. The CIT (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the interest payment of Rs.16,24,380/- pertained to income from derivatives. 11.The CIT (Appeals) ought to have seen that only the surplus funds of the Appellant have been used for the purpose of the investment. 4. It was submitted by the Ld.AR that Ground Nos.1

K.R.JAYARAM,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

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

ITA 1698/CHNY/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Oct 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Mr.Arjunraj, C.A ""For Respondent: Mr.K.Ravi, JCIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 50C

capital ITA No.1698/Mds./16 :- 29 -: gains by applying sec.50C of the Act, the AO should not be precluded from issuing notice u/s.148 of the Act. This submission of the ld.D.R overlooks the facts that power to reopen is not a power to review an assessment order. At the time of passing the assessment order, it is expected from

M/S. RMZ INFINITY (CHENNAI) PVT. LTD.,KANCHIPURAM vs. PCIT-4, , CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 511/CHNY/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jun 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.511/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2009-10 M/S.Rmz Infinity(Chennai) Pvt. Ltd, The Principal Commissioner Of No.110, Mount Poonamallee Road, Income Tax-4, Porur, Porur S.O, Circle-1, Ltu, Kanchipuram Dist, Chennai Tamil Nadu-600 116. [Pan: Aaacd2287R]

For Appellant: Shri B.Ramakrishnan, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms.E.Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 263

capital gains. While passing the impugned order, the Ld PCIT placed reliance upon decision of Hon’ble Apex court to support his arguments on earnings from business or income from house property. 6.0 Per contra, the Ld.DR relied upon the order of lower authorities. It was vehemently argued that as the Ld.AO had not conducted any enquiries and investigation before

ACCEL LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for 38

ITA 24/CHNY/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. S.T. Prabhu, DirectorFor Respondent: Shri. A.V. Sreekanth, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)

119 2002-03 66,60,002 2003-04 49,36,250 Total 163,74,371 5.2.1 It is also noticed that similar disallowance was made by the AO :- 7 -: ITA No. 23, 24, 144 to 147/2015. for AY. 04-05 including RS.3 crores which is a subject matter of discussion for the present assessment year and my Id. predecessor, after

ACCEL LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for 38

ITA 23/CHNY/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 May 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. S.T. Prabhu, DirectorFor Respondent: Shri. A.V. Sreekanth, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)

119 2002-03 66,60,002 2003-04 49,36,250 Total 163,74,371 5.2.1 It is also noticed that similar disallowance was made by the AO :- 7 -: ITA No. 23, 24, 144 to 147/2015. for AY. 04-05 including RS.3 crores which is a subject matter of discussion for the present assessment year and my Id. predecessor, after

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. ACCEL LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for 38

ITA 144/CHNY/2015[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 May 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. S.T. Prabhu, DirectorFor Respondent: Shri. A.V. Sreekanth, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)

119 2002-03 66,60,002 2003-04 49,36,250 Total 163,74,371 5.2.1 It is also noticed that similar disallowance was made by the AO :- 7 -: ITA No. 23, 24, 144 to 147/2015. for AY. 04-05 including RS.3 crores which is a subject matter of discussion for the present assessment year and my Id. predecessor, after

DORAISWAMY SURESH (HUF),COIMBATORE vs. PCIT-1, COIMBATORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 609/CHNY/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.609/Chny/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Doraiswamy Suresh (Huf), Vs Assistant Commissioner Of 4, Ramalinga Adigalar Nagar, Income Tax, Nehru Nagar, Kalapatti, Non-Corporate Circle-2, Coimbatore-641 014. Coimbatore. Pan: Aaihd 1367H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. M.Rajan, CIT &
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263

capital gain computed by the assessee and thus, it cannot be said that the Assessing Officer has passed assessment order without verifying issues questioned by the learned Principal CIT. The learned A.R further submitted that although, the Principal CIT has questioned difference in value of property, but if you consider guideline value of property to sale consideration received for transfer

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. BUHARI HOLDINGS PRIVAE LIMITED, CHENNAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 325/CHNY/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.325/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-2011) The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Buhari Holdings Pvt. Ltd, Income Tax, No.4, Buhari Towers, Corporate Circle 1(2) Moores Road, Chennai. Chennai 600 006. [Pan Aaacb 2679M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. G. Baskar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Arv Srinivasan, Irs, Addl Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri. G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri ARV Srinivasan, IRS, Addl CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 28

gains chargeable under section 45", but right now we are confined to normal connotations of the expression 'income'. Howsoever liberal or narrow be the interpretation of expression 'income', it cannot alter character of a receipt, i.e. convert a capital receipt into revenue receipt or vice versa. The crucial distinction between capital and revenue cannot be blurred or nullified by even

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. SIFY TECHNOLOGIES LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 439/CHNY/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Dr. M.M.Bhusari, IRS, CITFor Respondent: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(2)Section 148Section 40

section 90 (2), the provision of DTAA or that Indian tax law whichever is more beneficial would apply. e) The learned Assessing Officer erred in not giving sufficient time to collect the information‘’. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) examined 16. the facts, submissions, nature and purpose of payment. The assessee has incurred expenses in relation to the business

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. SIFY TECHNOLOGIES LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 435/CHNY/2010[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jun 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Dr. M.M.Bhusari, IRS, CITFor Respondent: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(2)Section 148Section 40

section 90 (2), the provision of DTAA or that Indian tax law whichever is more beneficial would apply. e) The learned Assessing Officer erred in not giving sufficient time to collect the information‘’. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) examined 16. the facts, submissions, nature and purpose of payment. The assessee has incurred expenses in relation to the business