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.

81 results for “capital gains”+ Section 302clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai299Delhi244Bangalore97Jaipur94Chennai81Hyderabad49Ahmedabad46Kolkata42Chandigarh28Nagpur12Rajkot12Indore11Karnataka10Pune9Visakhapatnam4Lucknow4Surat4SC3Jodhpur3Raipur2Patna2Panaji2Telangana1Varanasi1Andhra Pradesh1Cochin1Rajasthan1Guwahati1Agra1

Key Topics

Section 54F56Section 143(3)53Addition to Income48Section 14747Disallowance34Depreciation29Section 26328Section 14827Deduction24Exemption

NATESAN EKAMBARAM,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the ground of appeal raised by the assessee on this issue stands allowed

ITA 2873/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.:2873/Chny/2024 धनिाारणिर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Natesan Ekambaram, Dcit, 1/115, Bajanai Kovil Vs. Central Circle -1(2), Street, Chennai. Perumbakkam, Medavakkam Post, Chennai – 601 302 [Pan:Ackpe-6757-C] (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) (अपीलाथी/Appellant) अपीलाथीकीओरसे/Appellant By : Mr.K.Vishwa Padmanabhan, Ca. प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Mr.C.Sivakumar , Addl.Cit.

For Appellant: Mr.K.Vishwa Padmanabhan, CAFor Respondent: Mr.C.Sivakumar , Addl.CIT
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 54

302 [PAN:ACKPE-6757-C] (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) (अपीलाथी/Appellant) अपीलाथीकीओरसे/Appellant by : Mr.K.Vishwa Padmanabhan, CA. प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent by : Mr.C.Sivakumar , Addl.CIT. सुनिाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 19.08.2025 घोर्णाकीतारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 01.09.2025 आआआआ /O R D E R PER S. R. RAGHUNATHA, AM : This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 25.09.2024 passed by the learned Commissioner

Showing 1–20 of 81 · Page 1 of 5

17
Capital Gains16
Section 1114

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. CHARUMATHY SESHADRI, CHENNAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is treated as partly allowed for

ITA 886/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri. N.R. Govindarajan, CA &
Section 139Section 54F

302 ITR 286, the CIT(A) held that the assessee need not complete the construction and occupy the same within the period of three years from the date of sale of original asset, if the construction had commenced within the period of three years. In the assessee’s case not only the capital gain were invested in the purchase

ANTHIAH PANCRAS,TIRUVANNAMALAI vs. ITO WARD 1, THIRUVANNAMALAI

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

ITA 27/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2019AY 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

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

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 Account Scheme (CGAS) is only a Directory provision and not a Mandatory provision. 4) The Ld. CIT(A) failed to notice that are plethora of case laws, including the decisions of the H’ble Jurisdictional Madras High Court, cited before him, in favour of the assessee’s claim for deduction

SMT. P. CHITRA,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 13 (2),, CHENNAI

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

ITA 749/CHNY/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 749/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Respondent: Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 54F

capital gains as claimed by the assessee. 9. Having said so, let us come back to the deduction claimed u/s. 54F of the Act. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the assessee has purchased another vacant residential plot :-14-: ITA. No: 749/Chny/2020 for a consideration of Rs. 38,75,400/- vide sale deed dated

GOLDEN ERA PLANTATIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT,CIRCLE 1, OOTY

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

ITA 838/CHNY/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 838/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri. T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, CAFor Respondent: Shri. M. Rajan, CIT

302 021. Ooty – 643 001. [PAN: AABCM-2142-B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri. T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, CA ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Shri. M. Rajan, CIT सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 22.09.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 14.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R PER G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT

GOVINDARAJAN RAMASAMY,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2551/CHNY/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Mar 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 2551/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Srinivas, JCIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54F

302 ITR 286. 2.3 Both the Authorities below failed and misdirected themselves in not appreciating and considering the Cited Circulars (CBDT in No. 471 dated 15.10.1986 and No. 672 dated 16.12.1993) in its proper perspective and giving it a strange interpretation. 2.4 The Authorities below failed to note and consider that the assessee had submitted his reasons and objections

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)

302(SC)and also Co- ordinate Bench of ITAT in the case of DCIT vs. Toyo Engineering India Ltd., ITA No.3279/Mum/2008. 4.6 The AO by applying the above ratio, recomputed the depreciation being difference between the book value of the asset and the liabilities transferred to goodwill account of the assessee company which worked out to Rs.14

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)

302(SC)and also Co- ordinate Bench of ITAT in the case of DCIT vs. Toyo Engineering India Ltd., ITA No.3279/Mum/2008. 4.6 The AO by applying the above ratio, recomputed the depreciation being difference between the book value of the asset and the liabilities transferred to goodwill account of the assessee company which worked out to Rs.14

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)

302(SC)and also Co- ordinate Bench of ITAT in the case of DCIT vs. Toyo Engineering India Ltd., ITA No.3279/Mum/2008. 4.6 The AO by applying the above ratio, recomputed the depreciation being difference between the book value of the asset and the liabilities transferred to goodwill account of the assessee company which worked out to Rs.14

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)

302(SC)and also Co- ordinate Bench of ITAT in the case of DCIT vs. Toyo Engineering India Ltd., ITA No.3279/Mum/2008. 4.6 The AO by applying the above ratio, recomputed the depreciation being difference between the book value of the asset and the liabilities transferred to goodwill account of the assessee company which worked out to Rs.14

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)

302(SC)and also Co- ordinate Bench of ITAT in the case of DCIT vs. Toyo Engineering India Ltd., ITA No.3279/Mum/2008. 4.6 The AO by applying the above ratio, recomputed the depreciation being difference between the book value of the asset and the liabilities transferred to goodwill account of the assessee company which worked out to Rs.14

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)

302(SC)and also Co- ordinate Bench of ITAT in the case of DCIT vs. Toyo Engineering India Ltd., ITA No.3279/Mum/2008. 4.6 The AO by applying the above ratio, recomputed the depreciation being difference between the book value of the asset and the liabilities transferred to goodwill account of the assessee company which worked out to Rs.14

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)

302(SC)and also Co- ordinate Bench of ITAT in the case of DCIT vs. Toyo Engineering India Ltd., ITA No.3279/Mum/2008. 4.6 The AO by applying the above ratio, recomputed the depreciation being difference between the book value of the asset and the liabilities transferred to goodwill account of the assessee company which worked out to Rs.14

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)

302(SC)and also Co- ordinate Bench of ITAT in the case of DCIT vs. Toyo Engineering India Ltd., ITA No.3279/Mum/2008. 4.6 The AO by applying the above ratio, recomputed the depreciation being difference between the book value of the asset and the liabilities transferred to goodwill account of the assessee company which worked out to Rs.14

SUJA GANESSAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NON CORPORATE WARD 10(4), CHENNAI

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

ITA 250/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.250/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anita, JCIT
Section 54

302 ITR 286 and the decision of this Bench of the Tribunal in Mrs. Seetha Subramanian v. ACIT (1996) 59 ITD 94, the Ld.counsel submitted that it is not necessary that residential building has to be completed before the due date. What is required, according to the Ld. counsel, is investment of capital gain before the due date. In this

ITO COMPANY WARD 5(1), , CHENNAI vs. PRAVIN KUMAR JAIN, CHENNAI

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA 495/CHNY/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri D.Hema Bhupal (JCIT)-Ld. Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri D. Anand, (Advocate)- Ld. AR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 54F

section 139(1) is fatal to the claim for exemption." 2.4 The ld CIT(A) erred in allowing the claim of deduction u/s.54F of the Act without considering the fact that the assessee has not spent substantial amount in construction before the time limits specified in the statue and that of construction of the new asset. 2. As evident

ITO COMPANY WARD 5(1),, CHENNAI vs. VIKAS KUMAR JAIN, CHENNAI

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA 498/CHNY/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri D.Hema Bhupal (JCIT)-Ld. Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri D. Anand, (Advocate)- Ld. AR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 54F

section 139(1) is fatal to the claim for exemption." 2.4 The ld CIT(A) erred in allowing the claim of deduction u/s.54F of the Act without considering the fact that the assessee has not spent substantial amount in construction before the time limits specified in the statue and that of construction of the new asset. 2. As evident

DCIT COMPANY CIRCLE V(2),, CHENNAI vs. SHRI UTTAM KUMAR JAIN, CHENNAI

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA 497/CHNY/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri D.Hema Bhupal (JCIT)-Ld. Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri D. Anand, (Advocate)- Ld. AR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 54F

section 139(1) is fatal to the claim for exemption." 2.4 The ld CIT(A) erred in allowing the claim of deduction u/s.54F of the Act without considering the fact that the assessee has not spent substantial amount in construction before the time limits specified in the statue and that of construction of the new asset. 2. As evident