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.

6 results for “capital gains”+ Section 80A(5)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai82Ahmedabad49Delhi36Bangalore36Hyderabad21Jaipur14Rajkot11Kolkata9Amritsar7Chennai6Pune6Lucknow6Guwahati5Surat4SC4Karnataka2Cochin2Nagpur2Indore1Telangana1

Key Topics

Section 115J15Section 806Section 54E5Section 80H5Deduction5Section 2634Addition to Income4Section 8O3Section 143(3)2Section 45

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

Section 54EC provides that capital gain not to be charge on investment on certain bonds. Therefore investments made in certain bonds shall be outside scope of capital gain for purpose of computation of total income itself, It is not a deduction under Chap. VIA which comes into picture only after commuting total income and deductions are being allowed from gross

2
Disallowance2
Capital Gains2

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. TVS MOTOR COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1782/CHNY/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2008-09 The The Asst. Asst. Commissioner Commissioner Of Of Vs. M/S. Tvs Motor Company Ltd., M/S. Tvs Motor Company Ltd., Income Tax, Company Circle Income Tax, Company Circle- Jayalakshmi Estates, 29 (Old Jayalakshmi Estates, 29 (Old Iii(2), New Block, 4Th Floor, 121, Iii(2), New Block, 4 No.8), Haddows Road, Chennai No.8), Haddows Road, Chennai Mahatma Mahatma Gandhi Gandhi Road, Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai Nungambakkam, Chennai Pan/Gir No.Aaacs 7032 B Aaacs 7032 B (Appellant) (Appellant .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Ar Revenue By : Dr. S.Palanikumar, Cit ( Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 24 /2/ 2022 2 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/4/20 /2022 O R D E R Per C.M.Garg, Jm , Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vikram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Dr. S.Palanikumar, CIT (
Section 80Section 80HSection 80I

80A has introduced a new concept of ‘gross total income’ as distinguished from the ‘total income’ i.e.the net or taxable income. Ld counsel for the assessee further explained that clause (5) of Section 80B defines the expression ‘gross total income’ i.e. to mean the total income computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act before

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), CHENNAI vs. FIXIT PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

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

ITA 2833/CHNY/2017[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jun 2018AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P.George

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr.N.Gopikrishna, JCIT
Section 10Section 115J

capital asset, being share of a special purpose vehicle to a business trust in exchange of units allotted by that trust referred to in clause (xvii) of section 47; or (B) notional gain resulting from any change in carrying amount of said units; or (C) gain on transfer of units referred to in clause (xvii) of section

SANGU CHAKRA HOTELS PVT LTD.,TRICHY vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, TRICHY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 2759/CHNY/2017[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Aug 2019AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2759/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2001-02. M/S. Sangu Chakra Hotels Pvt. Ltd, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Collector’S Office Road, Income Tax, Tiruchirapalli 620 001. Circle 1, Tiruchirapalli. [Pan Aaacs 8819A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Philip George, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. AR.V. Sreenivasan, IRS, JCIT
Section 115Section 115JSection 234BSection 80A(2)Section 80HSection 8O

80A(2) and 80B(5) applied to all sections appearing under Chapter VI-A of the Act including Section 80HHD. 2.4. Alternative Ground: 2.4.1. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in rejecting the alternative plea raised by the Appellant that since, even as per the Assessing Officer himself, the gross total income was worked

FAIVELEY TRANSPORT TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT. LTD.,HOSUR vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1598/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member), SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri. Ashik Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, IRS, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80

80A, which is applicable for deductions to be claimed u/s 80C to 80U in computing total income, states the following: "Where the assessee fails to make a claim in his return of income for any deduction under section 104 or section 10AA or section 10B or section 10BA or under any provision of this Chapter under the heading "C.-Deductions

K.P.R.MILL LIMITED ,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2 , COIMBATORE

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

ITA 1915/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jan 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1915/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Ruby George, CIT

5 I.T.A. No.1915/Mds/17 unapproved gratuity fund. Since the gratuity fund was not approved by the Commissioner during the relevant year under consideration, according to the Ld. counsel, the contribution made by the assessee towards unapproved gratuity fund was disallowed. According to the Ld. counsel, the amount paid by the assessee has gone out of the hands of the assessee irrecoverably