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.

74 results for “capital gains”+ Section 364clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai299Delhi205Chennai74Chandigarh59Bangalore54Calcutta36Ahmedabad29Hyderabad28Jaipur25Raipur19Kolkata18Lucknow14SC7Nagpur6Pune4Telangana4Cochin4Karnataka3Indore3Surat2Visakhapatnam1Amritsar1Andhra Pradesh1Cuttack1Panaji1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)22Disallowance18Addition to Income17Section 14813Depreciation13Section 14A12Section 1112Reassessment11Reopening of Assessment11

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)

364/- as against claim made by assessee at Rs.8,19,09,459/- after considering the reply of assessee dated 15.02.2019 and analyzing the provisions of section 32 r.w.s 47(xiii), 48, 49 & 55 and sections 28 to 41 and also section 43 of the Act, dismissed the claim of assessee by discussing in para 6.6.1 as under:- 6.6.1. The appellant

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

Showing 1–20 of 74 · Page 1 of 4

Section 13210
Section 153A10
Section 115V8
ITA 2280/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: Disposed
ITAT Chennai
05 Aug 2022
AY 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)

364/- as against claim made by assessee at Rs.8,19,09,459/- after considering the reply of assessee dated 15.02.2019 and analyzing the provisions of section 32 r.w.s 47(xiii), 48, 49 & 55 and sections 28 to 41 and also section 43 of the Act, dismissed the claim of assessee by discussing in para 6.6.1 as under:- 6.6.1. The appellant

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)

364/- as against claim made by assessee at Rs.8,19,09,459/- after considering the reply of assessee dated 15.02.2019 and analyzing the provisions of section 32 r.w.s 47(xiii), 48, 49 & 55 and sections 28 to 41 and also section 43 of the Act, dismissed the claim of assessee by discussing in para 6.6.1 as under:- 6.6.1. The appellant

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)

364/- as against claim made by assessee at Rs.8,19,09,459/- after considering the reply of assessee dated 15.02.2019 and analyzing the provisions of section 32 r.w.s 47(xiii), 48, 49 & 55 and sections 28 to 41 and also section 43 of the Act, dismissed the claim of assessee by discussing in para 6.6.1 as under:- 6.6.1. The appellant

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)

364/- as against claim made by assessee at Rs.8,19,09,459/- after considering the reply of assessee dated 15.02.2019 and analyzing the provisions of section 32 r.w.s 47(xiii), 48, 49 & 55 and sections 28 to 41 and also section 43 of the Act, dismissed the claim of assessee by discussing in para 6.6.1 as under:- 6.6.1. The appellant

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)

364/- as against claim made by assessee at Rs.8,19,09,459/- after considering the reply of assessee dated 15.02.2019 and analyzing the provisions of section 32 r.w.s 47(xiii), 48, 49 & 55 and sections 28 to 41 and also section 43 of the Act, dismissed the claim of assessee by discussing in para 6.6.1 as under:- 6.6.1. The appellant

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)

364/- as against claim made by assessee at Rs.8,19,09,459/- after considering the reply of assessee dated 15.02.2019 and analyzing the provisions of section 32 r.w.s 47(xiii), 48, 49 & 55 and sections 28 to 41 and also section 43 of the Act, dismissed the claim of assessee by discussing in para 6.6.1 as under:- 6.6.1. The appellant

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)

364/- as against claim made by assessee at Rs.8,19,09,459/- after considering the reply of assessee dated 15.02.2019 and analyzing the provisions of section 32 r.w.s 47(xiii), 48, 49 & 55 and sections 28 to 41 and also section 43 of the Act, dismissed the claim of assessee by discussing in para 6.6.1 as under:- 6.6.1. The appellant

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)

Section 271(1)(c) by not filing the return u/s 139 duly disclosing the particulars of capital gains chargeable to tax for Asst. Year 2012-13. 6. Further, the assessee claims that the company was voluntarily planning to approach the income tax department and seek its guidance as to how to file the return of income after passage

ANNIRUTHA RAGHAVEER,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NON CORP WARD 1(1), CHENNAI

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

ITA 566/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.566/Chny/2019 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Respondent: 26.11.2019
Section 54

364/- till the date of assessment, i.e. 30.12.2016. It was a submission that the capital gains liability was only to an extent of Rs.1,08,50,000/-. It was a submission that the assessee having constructed the residential house within the prescribed three years period, the assessee was entitled to the benefit of Section

ACIT COMPANY CIRCLE VI(1), CHENNAI vs. SAIPEM INDIA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue in ITA

ITA 1210/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar"नधा'रण वष' /Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Mr.Pranith Golecha, CA /For Respondent: Mr. J.Pavithran Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9Section 9(1)(vi)Section 92C

capital gains and do not fall within the second proviso, then the said consideration would be 'Royalty' for the purpose of this clause, as defined in Explanation 2. 22. Similarly, clause (v) deals with copyright, literary, artistic or scientific work and the consideration for the transaction of all or any rights (including granting of licence) in respect of any copyright

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. RANGASWAMY BHASKARAN, KODUNGAIYUR

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

ITA 1353/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 132

capital gain of Rs.2.27 crores disclosed in the income Rs.2.27 crores disclosed in the income-tax return for AY 2017 tax return for AY 2017-18 and the investment in gold jewellery was also reflected in the bala investment in gold jewellery was also reflected in the bala investment in gold jewellery was also reflected in the balance-sheet

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI vs. SHRI. MOOLCHAND KIRAN KUMAR JAIN, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 6/CHNY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jul 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 5 & 6/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2020-21 & 2021-22 The Dy. Commissioner Of Shri. Moolchandkiran Kumar Income Tax, V. Jain, Central Circle -1(4), No. 123, Usman Road, T.Nagar, Chennai-34. Chennai – 600 017. [Pan:Achpm-2247-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. D. Anand, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.05.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am: These Appeals Are Preferred By The Revenue Against The Common Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, (Hereinafter In Short "The Ld.Cit(A)”), Chennai, Dated 15.11.2022 Against The Assessment Order U/S.153A/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter In Short "The Act”) For :-2-: Ita. Nos: 5 & 6/Chny/2024

For Appellant: Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri. D. Anand, Advocate
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

364 2020-21 2021-22 14,38,90,173 15,37,46,880 :-6-: ITA. Nos: 5 & 6/Chny/2024 Total 29,76,37,053 27,75,99,514 9.3.3.3 The issue is whether the disallowance made by the AO u/s. 36(1)(iii) is in order, section 36(1)(iii) of the Act is reopened as under: Other deductions

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), CHENNAI vs. SHRI. MOOLCHAND KIRAN KUMAR JAIN, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 5 & 6/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2020-21 & 2021-22 The Dy. Commissioner Of Shri. Moolchandkiran Kumar Income Tax, V. Jain, Central Circle -1(4), No. 123, Usman Road, T.Nagar, Chennai-34. Chennai – 600 017. [Pan:Achpm-2247-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. D. Anand, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.05.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am: These Appeals Are Preferred By The Revenue Against The Common Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, (Hereinafter In Short "The Ld.Cit(A)”), Chennai, Dated 15.11.2022 Against The Assessment Order U/S.153A/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter In Short "The Act”) For :-2-: Ita. Nos: 5 & 6/Chny/2024

For Appellant: Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri. D. Anand, Advocate
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

364 2020-21 2021-22 14,38,90,173 15,37,46,880 :-6-: ITA. Nos: 5 & 6/Chny/2024 Total 29,76,37,053 27,75,99,514 9.3.3.3 The issue is whether the disallowance made by the AO u/s. 36(1)(iii) is in order, section 36(1)(iii) of the Act is reopened as under: Other deductions

ABHAYA KASHMIRA,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE -1, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is treated as

ITA 225/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No. 2542/Chny/2017 & Co No: 5/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Smt. Abhaya Kashmira, Tax, Vs. No. 6 & 7, Ramgiriextn., Non- Corporate Circle -1(1), Taramani, Velachery Link Road, Formerly Known As Business Circle -1, Chennai – 600 042. Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aixpk 0809J]

For Appellant: Shri. J. Prabhakar, CAFor Respondent: Shri. K. Mohamed Mustafa, JCIT
Section 14ASection 24ASection 54

capital gains :-3-: ITA No.225/Chny/2018 & 2542/Chny/2017 & CO No. 5/Chny/2018 accounts scheme on 28.7.2007, the assessee had an intention to construct the serviced apartments and sought plan permission from CMDA as early as in April 2007 etc., and hence he withdrew the deduction claimed u/s. 54 for assessment year 2007-08 and thereafter taking all other factors into consideration, he assessed

ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI vs. ABHAYA KASHMIRA, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is treated as

ITA 2542/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No. 2542/Chny/2017 & Co No: 5/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Smt. Abhaya Kashmira, Tax, Vs. No. 6 & 7, Ramgiriextn., Non- Corporate Circle -1(1), Taramani, Velachery Link Road, Formerly Known As Business Circle -1, Chennai – 600 042. Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aixpk 0809J]

For Appellant: Shri. J. Prabhakar, CAFor Respondent: Shri. K. Mohamed Mustafa, JCIT
Section 14ASection 24ASection 54

capital gains :-3-: ITA No.225/Chny/2018 & 2542/Chny/2017 & CO No. 5/Chny/2018 accounts scheme on 28.7.2007, the assessee had an intention to construct the serviced apartments and sought plan permission from CMDA as early as in April 2007 etc., and hence he withdrew the deduction claimed u/s. 54 for assessment year 2007-08 and thereafter taking all other factors into consideration, he assessed

VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,VELLORE vs. DCIT, CC IV(1), CHENNAI

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas that of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2126/CHNY/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Appellant: Shri. A. Mahesh, C.A
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)Section 132Section 153A

364 ITR 508 and that of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Surat City Gymkhana vs. DCIT, (2002) 254 ITR 733. 30. Viz-a-viz, the allegations of specific violations coming within the ambit of Section 13(1) (c) of the Act, ld. Authorised Representative submitted that the first one related to acquisition of a property

VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,VELLORE vs. DCIT, CC IV(1), CHENNAI

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas that of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2125/CHNY/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Appellant: Shri. A. Mahesh, C.A
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)Section 132Section 153A

364 ITR 508 and that of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Surat City Gymkhana vs. DCIT, (2002) 254 ITR 733. 30. Viz-a-viz, the allegations of specific violations coming within the ambit of Section 13(1) (c) of the Act, ld. Authorised Representative submitted that the first one related to acquisition of a property

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI vs. VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, VELLORE

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas that of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2219/CHNY/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Appellant: Shri. A. Mahesh, C.A
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)Section 132Section 153A

364 ITR 508 and that of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Surat City Gymkhana vs. DCIT, (2002) 254 ITR 733. 30. Viz-a-viz, the allegations of specific violations coming within the ambit of Section 13(1) (c) of the Act, ld. Authorised Representative submitted that the first one related to acquisition of a property

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI vs. VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, VELLORE

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas that of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2220/CHNY/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Appellant: Shri. A. Mahesh, C.A
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)Section 132Section 153A

364 ITR 508 and that of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Surat City Gymkhana vs. DCIT, (2002) 254 ITR 733. 30. Viz-a-viz, the allegations of specific violations coming within the ambit of Section 13(1) (c) of the Act, ld. Authorised Representative submitted that the first one related to acquisition of a property