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.

112 results for “capital gains”+ Section 133Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai448Delhi313Jaipur236Bangalore195Hyderabad132Chennai112Kolkata79Surat75Ahmedabad63Pune53Indore51Chandigarh51Rajkot51Visakhapatnam36Guwahati28Cuttack27Nagpur20Amritsar19Cochin14Lucknow12Karnataka6Patna6Allahabad4Raipur4Dehradun3Jodhpur3SC2Panaji2Ranchi2Telangana2Jabalpur1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)66Addition to Income53Section 153C51Section 14841Section 14737Section 6834Disallowance30Section 133A29Survey u/s 133A27Section 132

ANTHIAH PANCRAS,TIRUVANNAMALAI vs. ITO WARD 1, THIRUVANNAMALAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for ay: 2008-09 shall

ITA 28/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2

gain on its sale was exempt under section 10 (37) (i) of the l.T. Act in as much as the land was not situated in an area referred to in item (a) of sub clause (iii) of clause (14) of section 2 of the Act. 3. The learned C.I.T. (A) erred in not accepting the appellant's submission that

ANTHIAH PANCRAS,TIRUVANNAMALAI vs. ITO WARD 1, THIRUVANNAMALAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for ay: 2008-09 shall

Showing 1–20 of 112 · Page 1 of 6

25
Section 26322
Reopening of Assessment19
ITA 27/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: Disposed
ITAT Chennai
21 Oct 2019
AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2

gain on its sale was exempt under section 10 (37) (i) of the l.T. Act in as much as the land was not situated in an area referred to in item (a) of sub clause (iii) of clause (14) of section 2 of the Act. 3. The learned C.I.T. (A) erred in not accepting the appellant's submission that

PRAMILA PATEL,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 10 (3),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands

ITA 1827/CHNY/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1827/Chny/2019. "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2009-2010. Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Pramila Patel, No.27, Gnt Road, Non Corporate Ward 10(3) Puzhal, Chennai. Chennai 600 066. [Pan Aeipp 1044H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, IRS, JCIT
Section 148

Capital Gains (LTCG) through sham transactions. A survey under section 133A was conducted in the premises of Smt. Leela Surana

IRIS ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES P LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1437/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1437/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 M/S. Iris Engineering Industries Pvt. The Assistant Commissioner Of Ltd., (Now Known As M/S. Ravilla Vs. Income Tax, Corporate Circle 2, Aerospace Industries P. Ltd.), No. 178, Coimbatore. Aerodrome Road, Singanallur, Coimbatore 641 005. [Pan:Aaaci8996G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Dr. S. Palani Kumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 21.03.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.06.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao,: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Coimbatore Dated 31.03.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13 In Confirming The Levy Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. S. Palani Kumar, CIT
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

capital gains of ₹.98,92,494/- arising out of sale of 2.84 acres of land and completed the assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act vide order dated 24.03.2016. 2.1 Since, only due to survey operation under section 133A

INCOME TAX OFFICER, COIMBATORE vs. DAMAYANTI RAMACHANDRAN, GN MILLS POST, COIMBATORE

In the result, both the appeals of revenue for the A

ITA 103/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.103/Chny/2025, ननिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Mr.Ketan K. Ved, C.AFor Respondent: Mr.Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 45(4)

gains of business or profession. The said provision deal with the taxation of benefits and perquisites in kind i.e., non- monetary benefits arising from business or profession. Our above view is based on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahindra and Mahindra vs. Commissioner (404 ITR 1 – SC) wherein it is held as under

SARANGABANI KIRUBAKARAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), CHENNAI

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1237/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1237/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Sarangabani Kirubakaran Dcit बनाम/ 17/6, First Pillayar Koil Street, Circle-1(2) Vs. Ekkatuthangal, Chennai-600 032. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Bumpk-0892-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami (Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25-07-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04-09-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15 Arises Out Of The Common Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai, [Cit(A)] Dated 13-09-2023 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By The Ld. Ao U/S.153C R.W.S. 144 Of The Act On 31- 03-2022. The Grievance Of The Assessee Is Confirmation Of Addition U/S 69 For Rs.8.04 Lacs & Rs.5 Lacs. The Assessee Is Also Aggrieved By Computation Of Long-Term Capital Gains (Ltcg) Of Rs.157.45 Lacs. 2. The Ld Ar Advanced Arguments On Merits As Well As On Legal Grounds & Also Raised Additional Grounds Of Appeal. The Ld. Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami (Advocate)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) -Ld. DR
Section 153CSection 69

capital gains. The first appellate authority found that the land was classified as agricultural land and as per revenue record the land squarely fell within the definition of agricultural land and therefore, allowed the claim of the assessee. The Tribunal reversed the stand of Ld. CIT(A). Upon further appeal by the assessee, Hon’ble High Court of Madras held

ARVIND NANDAGOPAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-3(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2270/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Respondent: Mr.M. Murali, CIT
Section 131Section 132

capital gain added in AY 2014-15 was unsustainable, since it was not based on any incriminating material found in the course of search. The Ld. AR relying upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Kabul Chawla (380 ITR 573), which has since been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

ARVIND NANDAGOPAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-3(1),, CHENNAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2273/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Respondent: Mr.M. Murali, CIT
Section 131Section 132

capital gain added in AY 2014-15 was unsustainable, since it was not based on any incriminating material found in the course of search. The Ld. AR relying upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Kabul Chawla (380 ITR 573), which has since been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

ARVIND NANDAGOPAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-3(1),, CHENNAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2272/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Respondent: Mr.M. Murali, CIT
Section 131Section 132

capital gain added in AY 2014-15 was unsustainable, since it was not based on any incriminating material found in the course of search. The Ld. AR relying upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Kabul Chawla (380 ITR 573), which has since been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

ARVIND NANDAGOPAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-3(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2271/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Respondent: Mr.M. Murali, CIT
Section 131Section 132

capital gain added in AY 2014-15 was unsustainable, since it was not based on any incriminating material found in the course of search. The Ld. AR relying upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Kabul Chawla (380 ITR 573), which has since been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

MR. VIKRAM DUGHAR,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 2 (2), CHENNAI

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

ITA 1741/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Nov 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1741/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-2015. Shri. Vikram Dughar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.07, Non Corporate Ward 2(2) Hindi Prachar Sabha Street, Chennai. Chennai 600 017. [Pan Ahqpp 5914R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. G. Ashokapathy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 10(38)Section 133ASection 68

capital gains of "8,74,250/- on sale of certain shares, and deeming the consideration of "8,76,750/- received on such sale as cash credit under Section 68 of the Act. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that during the 2. relevant previous year assessee had received consideration of "8,76,750/- on sale of 25,000 equity shares

SHANTHILAL & SONS (HUF),CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 6(3), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2660/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Sept 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2660/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-2015. M/S. Shanthilal & Sons (Huf) Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.31, Chandrappa Mudali Non Corporate Ward 6(3) Street, Chennai. Sowcarpet, Chennai 600 079. [Pan Aaehs 4521C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri. Marudhu Pandian, Addl. CIT
Section 10(38)Section 133A

capital gains on sale of certain shares. ITA No.2660 /CHNY/2017. :- 2 -: 2. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that during the relevant previous year assessee had received sale consideration of "18,37,526/- on sale of 1,30,000 equity shares of M/s. Essar India Limited. As per the ld. Authorised Representative, assessee had purchased these shares

PRAVEEN KUMAR (HUF),CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORP WARD 5 (4), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 702/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Aug 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

For Appellant: Mr. D. Anand, Adv
Section 10(38)Section 133A

capital gains arising out of sale of 6500 equity shares of one M/s.Grandma Trading Agencies Ltd., and treating the consideration of ₹17,83,870/- received on such sale under the head ‘’income from other sources’’. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee had 3. acquired 4200 equity shares of one M/s.Grandma Trading Agencies Ltd., through off market purchase

RAJESH SINGHVI & SONS (HUF),CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 6(1), CHENNAI

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

ITA 3076/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Jul 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

For Appellant: Mrs. B.Jaisheila, C.AFor Respondent: Mr. B. Sagadevan, IRS, JCIT
Section 10(38)Section 133A

capital gains on sale of certain shares. ITA No.3076 /CHNY/2017. :- 2 -: Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee had 2. earned "25,52,680/- on sale of 25,000 equity shares of M/s.Cresanda Commercial Solutions Ltd and 40,000 equity shares of M/s.Surabhi Chem & Investment Ltd. As per the ld. Authorised Representative, assessee had purchased these shares

SHRI R PANNERSELVAM,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CC-3(3),, CHENNAI

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

ITA 3356/CHNY/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 May 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 54F

capital gains from NHAI was not taxable. Ld. Sr. DR also referred to the reasons to believe recorded and submitted that survey was conducted u/s. 133A of the Act on 27.02.2008 by ADIT (Inv.), Unit-II(2), Chennai, fact of which is noted therein. This transaction was revealed only during the survey operation u/s 133A of the Act carried

ASTORIA LEATHERS,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in I

ITA 2551/CHNY/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Dec 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Madhavan, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271B

133A of the Act was conducted at the business premises of the assessee on 15.06.2012. During the course of the survey, it has been noticed by the Department that the assessee has been claiming depreciation in respect of non-existing asset and also claimed various expenses without any supporting evidence. In view of the above fact, the Department

ASTORIA LEATHERS,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in I

ITA 2553/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Dec 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Madhavan, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271B

133A of the Act was conducted at the business premises of the assessee on 15.06.2012. During the course of the survey, it has been noticed by the Department that the assessee has been claiming depreciation in respect of non-existing asset and also claimed various expenses without any supporting evidence. In view of the above fact, the Department

ASTORIA LEATHERS,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in I

ITA 2548/CHNY/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Dec 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Madhavan, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271B

133A of the Act was conducted at the business premises of the assessee on 15.06.2012. During the course of the survey, it has been noticed by the Department that the assessee has been claiming depreciation in respect of non-existing asset and also claimed various expenses without any supporting evidence. In view of the above fact, the Department

ASTORIA LEATHERS,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in I

ITA 2549/CHNY/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Dec 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Madhavan, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271B

133A of the Act was conducted at the business premises of the assessee on 15.06.2012. During the course of the survey, it has been noticed by the Department that the assessee has been claiming depreciation in respect of non-existing asset and also claimed various expenses without any supporting evidence. In view of the above fact, the Department

ITO, CHENNAI vs. N.RAGOTHAMAN, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 112/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. S. Vijayaprabha, JCIT
Section 148Section 44ASection 54F

capital gains account scheme and hence he denied the exemption claimed U/s.54F. Aggrieved against these assessment orders, the assesse filed appeals before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) held, inter alia, thatthe AO has validly reopened the impugned assessments. Keeping in view the minimum percentage of 8 % of turnover prescribed u/s. 44AD and at the same time, taking into account