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.

83 results for “capital gains”+ Section 269clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai327Delhi246Karnataka104Bangalore102Chennai83Jaipur56Indore33Kolkata31Ahmedabad29Chandigarh27Hyderabad20Calcutta16Pune11Cuttack7Visakhapatnam5Cochin5Guwahati5Lucknow4Jodhpur4Agra3Allahabad3Raipur3Rajkot3Rajasthan2Telangana2Surat2Andhra Pradesh1SC1Gauhati1Dehradun1

Key Topics

Disallowance52Section 143(3)42Section 10B42Deduction35Addition to Income31Section 271D22Section 153A19Section 1015Section 4014Section 11

ITO, CHENNAI vs. R.AISHWARYA, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1120/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jan 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1120/Mds/2016. "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-2012. The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Smt. R. Aishwarya, Non Corporate Ward 3(1) No.18, Raghave Veera Avenue, Chennai Poes Garden, Chennai 600 086. [Pan Aevpa2044K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. A.V. Sreekanth, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. M. Karunakaran, Advocate
Section 24Section 48

269/- ---------------------- Ld. Assessing Officer was of the opinion that interest of "63,98,540/- on the housing loan paid by the assessee, for the period starting from the date of purchase and ending on the date of sale of property could not be allowed as cost of acquisition/improvement. As per ld. Assessing Officer interest expenditure incurred during the period

SHRI T.N. RAJAMOHAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

Showing 1–20 of 83 · Page 1 of 5

12
Section 12A10
Exemption10

In the result, the assesse’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2540/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 54F

Capital Gains and not claimed tax exemption by mistake. The fresh claim was made for tax exemption before the First Appellate Authority and the said claim was accepted based on the CBDT Circular No.14(XL- 35) dated 11.04.1955. Considering the facts, the Mumbai Bench dismissed the departmental appeal in accepting the approach of the First Appellate Authority. The Jurisdictional Bench

MRS.SHANTHAMANI (REPRESENTING LATE MR.M.RAMALINGAM),COIMBATORE vs. ITO, NON CORP WARD 2(2), COIMBATORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assesse is allowed

ITA 286/CHNY/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Jan 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 286/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mrs. Shanthamani, The Income-Tax Officer, (Representing Late Mr. M. V. Non-Corporate Ward 2(2), Ramalingam) Coimbatore. 111, Oor Gounder Thottam, Anna Nagar, Velappanaickenpalayam, Chinnavedampatti Po, Coimbatore – 641 006. [Pan: Anlpr-8229-C]

For Appellant: Shri. R. Meena, CAFor Respondent: Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 140ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 240

capital gains having accrued to the appellant, as an :-3-: ITA. No:286/Chny/2019 individual, the return filed in his capacity as individual, admitting the said income, would not be a valid return, and in such circumstances, the provisions of self-assessment u/s. 140A are not attracted, as rightly contended by the appellant before him, in the facts and circumstances

T vs. SHRIRAM GROWTH FUND,CHENNAIVS.ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the Revenue’s appeals dismissed

ITA 981/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jun 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

For Respondent: Mr.Percy J. Pardewalla, Sr
Section 10Section 115Section 161(1)Section 164Section 40A(2)(b)

269/- 2.1 The assessee’s total income was loss of Rs.17,26,32,448/- which was claimed as pass-through to the beneficiaries. The AO disallowed a sum of Rs.5,99,34,183/- and assessed business loss at Rs.11,26,98,263/-. 3.0 The assessee went on appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) allowed the assessee

T vs. SHRIRAM GROWTH FUND,CHENNAIVS.ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the Revenue’s appeals dismissed

ITA 982/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jun 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

For Respondent: Mr.Percy J. Pardewalla, Sr
Section 10Section 115Section 161(1)Section 164Section 40A(2)(b)

269/- 2.1 The assessee’s total income was loss of Rs.17,26,32,448/- which was claimed as pass-through to the beneficiaries. The AO disallowed a sum of Rs.5,99,34,183/- and assessed business loss at Rs.11,26,98,263/-. 3.0 The assessee went on appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) allowed the assessee

ITO, CHENNAI vs. TVS SHRIRAM GRWOTH FUND, CHENNAI

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the Revenue’s appeals dismissed

ITA 1345/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jun 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

For Respondent: Mr.Percy J. Pardewalla, Sr
Section 10Section 115Section 161(1)Section 164Section 40A(2)(b)

269/- 2.1 The assessee’s total income was loss of Rs.17,26,32,448/- which was claimed as pass-through to the beneficiaries. The AO disallowed a sum of Rs.5,99,34,183/- and assessed business loss at Rs.11,26,98,263/-. 3.0 The assessee went on appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) allowed the assessee

T vs. SHRIRAM GROWTH FUND,CHENNAIVS.ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the Revenue’s appeals dismissed

ITA 1902/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jun 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

For Respondent: Mr.Percy J. Pardewalla, Sr
Section 10Section 115Section 161(1)Section 164Section 40A(2)(b)

269/- 2.1 The assessee’s total income was loss of Rs.17,26,32,448/- which was claimed as pass-through to the beneficiaries. The AO disallowed a sum of Rs.5,99,34,183/- and assessed business loss at Rs.11,26,98,263/-. 3.0 The assessee went on appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) allowed the assessee

ITO, CHENNAI vs. TVS SHRIRAM GROWTH FUND, CHENNAI

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the Revenue’s appeals dismissed

ITA 1401/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jun 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

For Respondent: Mr.Percy J. Pardewalla, Sr
Section 10Section 115Section 161(1)Section 164Section 40A(2)(b)

269/- 2.1 The assessee’s total income was loss of Rs.17,26,32,448/- which was claimed as pass-through to the beneficiaries. The AO disallowed a sum of Rs.5,99,34,183/- and assessed business loss at Rs.11,26,98,263/-. 3.0 The assessee went on appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) allowed the assessee

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)

gains tax. 7. Per Contra, ld.CIT-DR stating that the brand value was created in the books of accounts of the partnership firm as on 30.04.2008 and this firm was converted into a Public Ltd. Co. i.e. the assessee company. He stated that the so called brand value was never existed in the books of the partnership firm V.V.Vanniaperumal & Sons

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)

gains tax. 7. Per Contra, ld.CIT-DR stating that the brand value was created in the books of accounts of the partnership firm as on 30.04.2008 and this firm was converted into a Public Ltd. Co. i.e. the assessee company. He stated that the so called brand value was never existed in the books of the partnership firm V.V.Vanniaperumal & Sons

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)

gains tax. 7. Per Contra, ld.CIT-DR stating that the brand value was created in the books of accounts of the partnership firm as on 30.04.2008 and this firm was converted into a Public Ltd. Co. i.e. the assessee company. He stated that the so called brand value was never existed in the books of the partnership firm V.V.Vanniaperumal & Sons

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)

gains tax. 7. Per Contra, ld.CIT-DR stating that the brand value was created in the books of accounts of the partnership firm as on 30.04.2008 and this firm was converted into a Public Ltd. Co. i.e. the assessee company. He stated that the so called brand value was never existed in the books of the partnership firm V.V.Vanniaperumal & Sons

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)

gains tax. 7. Per Contra, ld.CIT-DR stating that the brand value was created in the books of accounts of the partnership firm as on 30.04.2008 and this firm was converted into a Public Ltd. Co. i.e. the assessee company. He stated that the so called brand value was never existed in the books of the partnership firm V.V.Vanniaperumal & Sons

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)

gains tax. 7. Per Contra, ld.CIT-DR stating that the brand value was created in the books of accounts of the partnership firm as on 30.04.2008 and this firm was converted into a Public Ltd. Co. i.e. the assessee company. He stated that the so called brand value was never existed in the books of the partnership firm V.V.Vanniaperumal & Sons

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)

gains tax. 7. Per Contra, ld.CIT-DR stating that the brand value was created in the books of accounts of the partnership firm as on 30.04.2008 and this firm was converted into a Public Ltd. Co. i.e. the assessee company. He stated that the so called brand value was never existed in the books of the partnership firm V.V.Vanniaperumal & Sons

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)

gains tax. 7. Per Contra, ld.CIT-DR stating that the brand value was created in the books of accounts of the partnership firm as on 30.04.2008 and this firm was converted into a Public Ltd. Co. i.e. the assessee company. He stated that the so called brand value was never existed in the books of the partnership firm V.V.Vanniaperumal & Sons

ASHOK LEYLAND LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2834/CHNY/2014[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Sept 2016AY 1995-96

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2825, 2826 & 2827/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-2008. The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Ashok Leyland Ltd, Income Tax, Vs. No.1, Sardar Patel Road, Large Taxpayer Unit -Ii, Guindy, Chennai 600 101. Chennai 600 032. [Pan Aaaca 4651L] (Department) (Assessee )

For Appellant: Shri. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Arun C. Bharath, IRS, CIT
Section 35D(2)Section 35D(2)(c)

269) in respect of capital expenditure and "7,20,91,344/- ("21,62,74,033 – "14,41 ,82,689) in respect of revenue expenditure, totaling to "15,38,44,478/-. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed an appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 39.2 In the appellate proceedings, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) considered the facts

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. ASHOK LEYLAND LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2827/CHNY/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Sept 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2825, 2826 & 2827/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-2008. The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Ashok Leyland Ltd, Income Tax, Vs. No.1, Sardar Patel Road, Large Taxpayer Unit -Ii, Guindy, Chennai 600 101. Chennai 600 032. [Pan Aaaca 4651L] (Department) (Assessee )

For Appellant: Shri. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Arun C. Bharath, IRS, CIT
Section 35D(2)Section 35D(2)(c)

269) in respect of capital expenditure and "7,20,91,344/- ("21,62,74,033 – "14,41 ,82,689) in respect of revenue expenditure, totaling to "15,38,44,478/-. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed an appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 39.2 In the appellate proceedings, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) considered the facts

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. ASHOK LEYLAND LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2825/CHNY/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Sept 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2825, 2826 & 2827/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-2008. The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Ashok Leyland Ltd, Income Tax, Vs. No.1, Sardar Patel Road, Large Taxpayer Unit -Ii, Guindy, Chennai 600 101. Chennai 600 032. [Pan Aaaca 4651L] (Department) (Assessee )

For Appellant: Shri. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Arun C. Bharath, IRS, CIT
Section 35D(2)Section 35D(2)(c)

269) in respect of capital expenditure and "7,20,91,344/- ("21,62,74,033 – "14,41 ,82,689) in respect of revenue expenditure, totaling to "15,38,44,478/-. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed an appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 39.2 In the appellate proceedings, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) considered the facts

DCIT LARGE TAX PAYER UNIT 1, CHENNAI vs. M/S SUNDARAM ASSET MANAGEMENT COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee(ITA no

ITA 467/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Mr.Raghavan RamabadranFor Respondent: Dr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 40

Section 14A of the 1961 Act. ITA Nos.419-422/Chny/2018 & ITA Nos.465-468/Chny/2018 :- 22 -: 12. The ld.Counsel for the assessee on the other hand submitted that short term capital gains are subject to Income-tax and hence all such investment in which short term capital gains arose should be excluded while computing disallowance of expenses u/s 14A of the 1961 Act. The assessee