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.

153 results for “capital gains”+ Section 251(1)(a)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai565Delhi447Bangalore174Jaipur153Chennai153Ahmedabad140Karnataka117Kolkata113Hyderabad100Indore63Pune58Cochin52Nagpur43Chandigarh43Surat36Guwahati25Lucknow25Panaji18Raipur18Calcutta17Telangana11Patna9Cuttack7Rajkot7Kerala6Visakhapatnam6Agra5Jodhpur4Jabalpur4Ranchi4SC3Rajasthan3Dehradun2Allahabad2Amritsar2Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)42Section 36(1)(viii)40Disallowance36Section 14A32Deduction31Addition to Income28Section 271D22Section 54F18Section 10A18

TAMIL NADU BRICK INDUSTRIES,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

ITA 744/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 May 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.744/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 M/S. Tamilnadu Brick Industries, The Income Tax Officer, No. 47, Mangali Nagar 1St Street, Vs. Non Corporate Circle 8(1), Arumbakkam, Chennai 600 106. Chennai. [Pan: Aafft3643P] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vijay Kumar Punna, Jr. Standing Counsel सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 13.02.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.05.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 9, Chennai, Dated 27.02.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: “1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 9, Chennai Dated 27.02.2017 In I.T.A.No.07/Cit(A)-9/2016-17 For The Above Mentioned Assessment Year Is Contrary To Law, Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Punna
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(47)(v)

1) was issued on 25.06.2015 and duly served on the appellant. As per the provisions u/s.2(47)(v) of the Act, read with the provisions of Section 50C of the Act, it was made clear that the appellant had agreed to transfer/sell its 60% of total land of 35 acres to Developer M/s. Brigade Enterprises Ltd for a consideration which

Showing 1–20 of 153 · Page 1 of 8

...
Capital Gains15
Section 14811
Condonation of Delay11

P.V.GOPALAKRISHNA,VELLORE vs. ACIT, VELLORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 2254/CHNY/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 May 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. A. Mahesh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. A.V. Sreekanth, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 45Section 54E

capital gains arising from transfer of one or more original assets, during the financial year in which the original asset or assets are transferred and in the subsequent financial year does not exceed fifty lakh rupeees’’. On combined reading of both the provisions, the legislative intent in the subsequent amendment is to restrict the investment

SIVANANDHA MILLS LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, ITA No.2106/Mds/13 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1216/CHNY/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Milind Madhukar Bhusari, CIT
Section 143Section 143(1)

sections 36(1)(vii) rws 36(2) of the Income Tax Act”. 9.3 Further, it is submitted that no such information was ever asked for in the course of appellate proceedings. He submitted that the claim of bad debts needs to be allowed in view of the following judgments: (i) CIT vs. Ahmedabad Electricity Company Limited

M/S. SIVANANDHA MILLS LTD.,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, ITA No.2106/Mds/13 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2106/CHNY/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jun 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Milind Madhukar Bhusari, CIT
Section 143Section 143(1)

sections 36(1)(vii) rws 36(2) of the Income Tax Act”. 9.3 Further, it is submitted that no such information was ever asked for in the course of appellate proceedings. He submitted that the claim of bad debts needs to be allowed in view of the following judgments: (i) CIT vs. Ahmedabad Electricity Company Limited

S.SATHYANARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 754/CHNY/2015[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Aug 2019AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao]

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 271

capital gains had arisen prior to 01.04.1999. In the case of alleged unexplained investments in land at Kodaikanal , the Assessing Officer further observed that the appellant had not fulfilled the condition stipulated to avail the benefit of immunity from the imposition of penalty proceeding provided in Explanation (5) to Section 271 (1) ( c) of the Act and therefore proceeded

S.SATHYANARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 756/CHNY/2015[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Aug 2019AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao]

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 271

capital gains had arisen prior to 01.04.1999. In the case of alleged unexplained investments in land at Kodaikanal , the Assessing Officer further observed that the appellant had not fulfilled the condition stipulated to avail the benefit of immunity from the imposition of penalty proceeding provided in Explanation (5) to Section 271 (1) ( c) of the Act and therefore proceeded

S.SATHYANARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 755/CHNY/2015[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Aug 2019AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao]

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 271

capital gains had arisen prior to 01.04.1999. In the case of alleged unexplained investments in land at Kodaikanal , the Assessing Officer further observed that the appellant had not fulfilled the condition stipulated to avail the benefit of immunity from the imposition of penalty proceeding provided in Explanation (5) to Section 271 (1) ( c) of the Act and therefore proceeded

M/S. CEEBROS HOTELS PVT. LTD.,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CC - 1 (2),, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3372/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Mar 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr. Abani Kanta Nayak, CITFor Respondent: 09.02.2021
Section 36(1)(ii)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act, said interest expenditure should be added to the cost of asset. Further, the Assessing Officer has also rejected arguments of the assessee in light of matching concept principles of accounting on the ground that when there is no revenue recognized from the project, then expenditure incurred for said project cannot be allowed

AVANASIYAPPAN ESWARAN,TIRUPPUR vs. ITO,WARD 1(2), TIRUPPUR

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

ITA 1666/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramachandran, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 50CSection 54FSection 54F(4)

capital gains in a CGAS account before the due date for filing the return under Section 139(1). • Instead, the appellant claims to have directly utilized the funds for house construction, which is argued to be substantive compliance. • However, substantive compliance cannot override a specific statutory requirement. The law mandates CGAS compliance, and failure to adhere to this requirement disqualifies

M/S. V.V.V. & SONS EDIBLE OILS LTD.,,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL-1,, MADURAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2278/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri P. G. Sekar, C.A ""For Respondent: Dr. S. Palani Kumar,CIT
Section 143(3)

251,829 260,178,717 271,169,571 Total Assets – [A] 613,913,750 512,939,706 480,231,476 Less : Current Liabilities 410,121,294 284,126,660 288,243,459 Net Assets 203,792,456 228,813,046 191,988,017 Net Profit 43,084,972 29,194,480 73,348,325 Return on Capital

M/S. V.V.VANNIAPERUMAL & SONS,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. PCIT-2, CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1765/CHNY/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri P. G. Sekar, C.A ""For Respondent: Dr. S. Palani Kumar,CIT
Section 143(3)

251,829 260,178,717 271,169,571 Total Assets – [A] 613,913,750 512,939,706 480,231,476 Less : Current Liabilities 410,121,294 284,126,660 288,243,459 Net Assets 203,792,456 228,813,046 191,988,017 Net Profit 43,084,972 29,194,480 73,348,325 Return on Capital

M/S. V.V.V. & SONS EDIBLE OILS LTD.,,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL-1,, MADURAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2275/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri P. G. Sekar, C.A ""For Respondent: Dr. S. Palani Kumar,CIT
Section 143(3)

251,829 260,178,717 271,169,571 Total Assets – [A] 613,913,750 512,939,706 480,231,476 Less : Current Liabilities 410,121,294 284,126,660 288,243,459 Net Assets 203,792,456 228,813,046 191,988,017 Net Profit 43,084,972 29,194,480 73,348,325 Return on Capital

M/S. V.V.V. & SONS EDIBLE OILS LTD.,,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL-1,, MADURAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2276/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri P. G. Sekar, C.A ""For Respondent: Dr. S. Palani Kumar,CIT
Section 143(3)

251,829 260,178,717 271,169,571 Total Assets – [A] 613,913,750 512,939,706 480,231,476 Less : Current Liabilities 410,121,294 284,126,660 288,243,459 Net Assets 203,792,456 228,813,046 191,988,017 Net Profit 43,084,972 29,194,480 73,348,325 Return on Capital

M/S. V.V.V. & SONS EDIBLE OILS LTD.,,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL-1,, MADURAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2277/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri P. G. Sekar, C.A ""For Respondent: Dr. S. Palani Kumar,CIT
Section 143(3)

251,829 260,178,717 271,169,571 Total Assets – [A] 613,913,750 512,939,706 480,231,476 Less : Current Liabilities 410,121,294 284,126,660 288,243,459 Net Assets 203,792,456 228,813,046 191,988,017 Net Profit 43,084,972 29,194,480 73,348,325 Return on Capital

M/S. V.V.V. & SONS EDIBLE OILS LTD.,,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL-1,, MADURAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2279/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri P. G. Sekar, C.A ""For Respondent: Dr. S. Palani Kumar,CIT
Section 143(3)

251,829 260,178,717 271,169,571 Total Assets – [A] 613,913,750 512,939,706 480,231,476 Less : Current Liabilities 410,121,294 284,126,660 288,243,459 Net Assets 203,792,456 228,813,046 191,988,017 Net Profit 43,084,972 29,194,480 73,348,325 Return on Capital

M/S. V.V.V. & SONS EDIBLE OILS LTD.,,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL-1,, MADURAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2280/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri P. G. Sekar, C.A ""For Respondent: Dr. S. Palani Kumar,CIT
Section 143(3)

251,829 260,178,717 271,169,571 Total Assets – [A] 613,913,750 512,939,706 480,231,476 Less : Current Liabilities 410,121,294 284,126,660 288,243,459 Net Assets 203,792,456 228,813,046 191,988,017 Net Profit 43,084,972 29,194,480 73,348,325 Return on Capital

M/S. V.V.V. & SONS EDIBLE OILS LTD.,,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL-1,, MADURAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2281/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri P. G. Sekar, C.A ""For Respondent: Dr. S. Palani Kumar,CIT
Section 143(3)

251,829 260,178,717 271,169,571 Total Assets – [A] 613,913,750 512,939,706 480,231,476 Less : Current Liabilities 410,121,294 284,126,660 288,243,459 Net Assets 203,792,456 228,813,046 191,988,017 Net Profit 43,084,972 29,194,480 73,348,325 Return on Capital

C.R.PARTHIBAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee it is dismissed

ITA 1023/CHNY/2017[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Mar 2022AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Dr. M.L. Meenaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1023/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012 - 2013

For Appellant: Mr. K. Gopalakrishnan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Guru Bashyam, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 45Section 47Section 54

Capital Gains Accounts Scheme’. The amount, so deposited along with the amount already utilized for purchase or construction of the new asset will be treated as cost of the new asset for the purpose of Section 54(1) of the Act. (9) I had acquired the land (comprised in the new property) only to construct an house property

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. SUNDARAM BNP PARIBAS HOME FINANCE, CHENNAI

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee and

ITA 3219/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1888/Chny/2018, 929, 2149 & 2150/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17) M/S. Sundaram Bnp Paribas Home Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Finance Ltd., Income Tax, Sundaram Towers, 46,Whites Road Corporate Circle-6(2) Chennai-600 014. Chennai-34. Pan: Aadcs 4826J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.3219 & 1513/Chny/2018, 301, 829, 2077 & 2078/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2013-14, 2012-13, 2014-15 To 2016-17) Vs M/S. Sundaram Bnp Paribas The Assistant / Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Home Finance Ltd., Corporate Circle-6(2) Sundaram Towers, Chennai-34 46,Whites Road Chennai-600 014. Pan: Aadcs 4826J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: 26.05.2022
Section 14ASection 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(viii)

251 (Delhi) held that Dividend received in respect of redeemable preference shares does not amount to profits derived from providing long term finance within meaning of section 36(l)(viii). Annexure-2 3. Hon’ble ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of Tourism Finance Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-tax in [20101 2 ITR(TRiB.) 1

M/S SUNDARAM BNP PARIBAS HOME FINANCE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 6 (2), CHENNAI

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee and

ITA 2150/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1888/Chny/2018, 929, 2149 & 2150/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17) M/S. Sundaram Bnp Paribas Home Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Finance Ltd., Income Tax, Sundaram Towers, 46,Whites Road Corporate Circle-6(2) Chennai-600 014. Chennai-34. Pan: Aadcs 4826J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.3219 & 1513/Chny/2018, 301, 829, 2077 & 2078/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2013-14, 2012-13, 2014-15 To 2016-17) Vs M/S. Sundaram Bnp Paribas The Assistant / Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Home Finance Ltd., Corporate Circle-6(2) Sundaram Towers, Chennai-34 46,Whites Road Chennai-600 014. Pan: Aadcs 4826J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: 26.05.2022
Section 14ASection 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(viii)

251 (Delhi) held that Dividend received in respect of redeemable preference shares does not amount to profits derived from providing long term finance within meaning of section 36(l)(viii). Annexure-2 3. Hon’ble ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of Tourism Finance Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-tax in [20101 2 ITR(TRiB.) 1