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.

8 results for “capital gains”+ Section 1Oclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi15Mumbai10Chennai8Bangalore3Telangana2Hyderabad2Indore2Kolkata1Jodhpur1

Key Topics

Section 109Section 1488Section 10(23)6Section 13(3)6Section 143(3)4Disallowance4Short Term Capital Gains4Bogus/Accommodation Entry4Reopening of Assessment

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. TVS INVESTMENTS LRD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, the Revenue's appeal as well as the assessee's Cross Objection are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 262/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.262/Chny/2017 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit M/S. Tvs Capital Funds (P) Limited (Formerly Known As Tvs Investments Limited) Corporate Circle-3(1) बनाम/ Jayalakshmi Estates, Chennai-600 034. Vs. No.29, (Old No.8), Haddows Road Chennai-600 006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaact-1154-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Dr. D. Praveen (Jcit) -Ld. Dr " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, (Advocate)-Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15-05-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11-06-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Dr. D. Praveen (JCIT) -Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, (Advocate)-Ld. AR

Section 48 of IT Act provides for mode of computation of capital gains. The starting point of computation is the full value of consideration received or accruing. What in fact never accrued or was never received cannot be computed as capital gains u/s 48. In the case of KP Vargheese vs ITO Ernakulam 131 ITR 597, the Supreme Court

4
Condonation of Delay4
Section 113
Exemption3

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, SALEM vs. THRIVENI EARTHMOVERS PVT. LTD., SALEM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2283/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2280, 2281, 2282 & 2283/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt Ltd, Of Income Tax, 22/110, Greenways Road, Central Circle, Fairlands, Salem Salem 636 016. [Pan Aabct 6759R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. M. Srinivasa Rao, IRS, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 148

gain of Rs.225,843/. Assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of Income lax Act, 1961 on 28.02.2014 by assessing income at Rs.242,82,49,494/- & STCG at Rs. 2,25,843/-. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle XXI, Kolkata has informed vide his letter dated 18.03.2014 that during the assessment proceedings in the case of M/s.Sakshi Trade Link

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, SALEM vs. THRIVENI EARTHMOVERS PVT. LTD., SALEM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2280/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2280, 2281, 2282 & 2283/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt Ltd, Of Income Tax, 22/110, Greenways Road, Central Circle, Fairlands, Salem Salem 636 016. [Pan Aabct 6759R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. M. Srinivasa Rao, IRS, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 148

gain of Rs.225,843/. Assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of Income lax Act, 1961 on 28.02.2014 by assessing income at Rs.242,82,49,494/- & STCG at Rs. 2,25,843/-. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle XXI, Kolkata has informed vide his letter dated 18.03.2014 that during the assessment proceedings in the case of M/s.Sakshi Trade Link

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, SALEM vs. THRIVENI EARTHMOVERS PVT. LTD., SALEM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2281/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2280, 2281, 2282 & 2283/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt Ltd, Of Income Tax, 22/110, Greenways Road, Central Circle, Fairlands, Salem Salem 636 016. [Pan Aabct 6759R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. M. Srinivasa Rao, IRS, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 148

gain of Rs.225,843/. Assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of Income lax Act, 1961 on 28.02.2014 by assessing income at Rs.242,82,49,494/- & STCG at Rs. 2,25,843/-. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle XXI, Kolkata has informed vide his letter dated 18.03.2014 that during the assessment proceedings in the case of M/s.Sakshi Trade Link

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, SALEM vs. THRIVENI EARTHMOVERS PVT. LTD., SALEM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2282/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2280, 2281, 2282 & 2283/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt Ltd, Of Income Tax, 22/110, Greenways Road, Central Circle, Fairlands, Salem Salem 636 016. [Pan Aabct 6759R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. M. Srinivasa Rao, IRS, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 148

gain of Rs.225,843/. Assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of Income lax Act, 1961 on 28.02.2014 by assessing income at Rs.242,82,49,494/- & STCG at Rs. 2,25,843/-. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle XXI, Kolkata has informed vide his letter dated 18.03.2014 that during the assessment proceedings in the case of M/s.Sakshi Trade Link

DCIT, CHATRAPATTI vs. M/S. INDIAN INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA nos2092& 2093/Chny/2016

ITA 2245/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. Saroj Kumar Parida, Advocate
Section 10Section 10(23)Section 11Section 13(3)

capital expenditure holding that when the entire costs of assets have already been claimed as application of income towards objects of the Trust, the claim of depreciation on the cost of the very same assets results in double deduction, assessed the accumulated income in ay 2006-07 as it was not- applied in ay 2011-12, denied the benefits

DCIT, CHATRAPATTI vs. M/S. INDIAN INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA nos2092& 2093/Chny/2016

ITA 2244/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. Saroj Kumar Parida, Advocate
Section 10Section 10(23)Section 11Section 13(3)

capital expenditure holding that when the entire costs of assets have already been claimed as application of income towards objects of the Trust, the claim of depreciation on the cost of the very same assets results in double deduction, assessed the accumulated income in ay 2006-07 as it was not- applied in ay 2011-12, denied the benefits

M/S. INDIAN INSTITUTE OF ENGG. TECHNOLOGY,CHENNAI vs. DDIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA nos2092& 2093/Chny/2016

ITA 2093/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. Saroj Kumar Parida, Advocate
Section 10Section 10(23)Section 11Section 13(3)

capital expenditure holding that when the entire costs of assets have already been claimed as application of income towards objects of the Trust, the claim of depreciation on the cost of the very same assets results in double deduction, assessed the accumulated income in ay 2006-07 as it was not- applied in ay 2011-12, denied the benefits