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.

14 results for “capital gains”+ Section 80Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai48Delhi33Jaipur31Ahmedabad16Chennai14Bangalore13Chandigarh12Lucknow10Indore7Hyderabad6Pune6Kolkata6Varanasi5Raipur5Surat5Telangana5Nagpur3Cochin2Amritsar2SC2Karnataka1Jodhpur1Patna1

Key Topics

Section 14817Section 80I8Section 808Section 1477Deduction7Section 143(3)6Section 234B6Cash Deposit6Reopening of Assessment6Section 234C

INCOME TAX OFFICER, CHENNAI vs. ROHITKUMAR NEMCHAND PIPARIA, CHENNAI

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1344/CHNY/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Dec 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1344/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Ito Shri Rohitkumar Nemchand Piparia बनाम International Taxation Ward-2(1) #34 (Old #77), Meddox Street, / Vs. Chennai. Choolai, Chennai-600 112. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Akzpp-0661-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri T. Banusekar & Ms. Samyuktha Banusekar (Advocates) - Ld. Ars " थ"कीओरसे/Revenue By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07-10-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31-12-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar & Ms. SamyukthaFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234BSection 234C

Capital Gain on Shares Sales Rs.229,96,19,403/- Less: Purchases Rs.189,63,15,388/- Rs.40,33,04,015/- Income from other sources Rs. 3,80,226/- Rs.40,36,84,241/- Less: Deduction u/s 80C Rs. 70,000/- Assessed Total Income Rs.40,36,14,241/- The above computation is not in dispute. The subject matter of appeal is computation

5
Section 545
Addition to Income4

NARENDRA MAHENDRA KOTHARI,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 5(2), CHENNAI

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

ITA 1006/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1006/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 V. Shri Narendra Mahendra- The Income Tax Officer, Kothari, Non-Corporate Ward-5(2), No.76, Osian Heights, Chennai. Basin Bridge Road, Mint, Chennai-600 079. [Pan: Amopk 2535 Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By Shri D. Anand, Advocate : ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By Shri Arv Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit : सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing 05.02.2024 घोषणाक"तारीख /Date Of : 14.02.2024 Pronouncement

Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 54Section 68Section 80C

80C which was rightfully allowable. 10. For these and other grounds that may be rendered at the time of hearing. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed its return of income for AY 2014-15 on 29.11.2014 admitting total income of Rs.2,31,330/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and assessment has been

LAGGISETTY MANOHAR KARTHIK,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 15(2), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 746/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 746/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 147Section 54Section 80C

Capital Gains reckoned to be assessable in the hands of the appellant herein was wrong, erroneous, unjustified, incorrect, invalid and not sustainable both on facts and in law. 12. The NFAC, Delhi erred in confirming the addition of Rs.5,92,799/- on the presumption of differential sum between the total interest income reported (Rs. 6,83,343/-) and as reflected

MITHU KUMARI RANKA,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 5(30, CHENNAI

In the result, five appeals vide ITA Nos

ITA 1970/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Ble“C” Bench

Section 10(38)Section 112Section 143(3)Section 234Section 68

Capital Gains on sale of shares having sales consideration of Rs. 24,82,748/-; OR (b) Pass such other orders as this respectful authority may deem fit. 4. Similar grounds are raised in ITA No. 1970/Chny/2018 which are reproduced for ease of reference – 1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income (Appeals)-S, is wrong, illegal and opposed

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

80C to 80U shall be allowed from his gross total income. He further explained that sub- section*\(1) of section 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

DCIT COMPANY CIRCLE I(1),, CHENNAI vs. POOL THEVAR MARIMUTHU, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue for the assessment

ITA 3400/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Apr 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.3399 & 3400/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs Mr. Pool Thevar Marimuthu Tax, Prop: M/S.Arun Enterprises 2 / 28, Reddy 1St Street, Company Circle-I(1), Chennai. Ekkattuthangal, Chennai-600 032. Pan: Aanpm 5361M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Y.Sridhar, CAFor Respondent: 03.03.2021
Section 10BSection 80I

capital, an unit which is capable of functioning as an independent unit and Is capable of / being regarded as an industrial undertaking engaged in the / production of articles. Though the heading of the section 80J refers to newly established industrial undertaking, in the body of the section, there is no requirement that the undertaking should be new or it must

DCIT COMPANY CIRCLE I(1),, CHENNAI vs. POOL THEVAR MARIMUTHU, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue for the assessment

ITA 3399/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Apr 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.3399 & 3400/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs Mr. Pool Thevar Marimuthu Tax, Prop: M/S.Arun Enterprises 2 / 28, Reddy 1St Street, Company Circle-I(1), Chennai. Ekkattuthangal, Chennai-600 032. Pan: Aanpm 5361M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Y.Sridhar, CAFor Respondent: 03.03.2021
Section 10BSection 80I

capital, an unit which is capable of functioning as an independent unit and Is capable of / being regarded as an industrial undertaking engaged in the / production of articles. Though the heading of the section 80J refers to newly established industrial undertaking, in the body of the section, there is no requirement that the undertaking should be new or it must

TITAN COMPANY LIMITED,HOSUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - LTU 2 (IC), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal raised by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1742/CHNY/2024[2011- 12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2024

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1742/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2011-12 Titan Company Limited, Assistant Commissioner Of No.3, Sipcot Industrial Complex, Income Tax, Hosur, Krishnagiri, Ltu-2, Tamil Nadu-635126 Chennai [Pan: Aaact5131A] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri Abhay Kumar, C.A अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Ms.Komali Krishna, Cit प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10.09.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.12.2024

For Appellant: Ms.Komali Krishna, CIT
Section 147Section 250Section 80Section 80C(2)(a)Section 80I

80C(2)(a)(ii) was made. The new undertaking commenced its operations w.e.f 29.03.2010 and the same being initial one the assessee was entitled to claim deduction u/s 80IC from AY-2010-11. The impugned entity had incurred a loss of Rs. 2,12,94,977/- in previous year 2009-10. It was noted that while computing deduction u/s 80IC

K.SURESH,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 571/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jun 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K. Ravi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT
Section 148

section 69. Akberally Esufally vs. CIT (1966) 60 ITR 563 (Mad), CIT vs. M.K. Bros. (1986) 52 CTR (Guj) 228 : (1987) 163 ITR 249 (Guj). The Calcutta High Court in Mihir Chatterjee vs. CIT (1994) 118 CTR (Cal) 26 : (1994) 205 ITR 270 (Cal) held that where the facts on record clearly established that the explanations offered by the assessee

K.SURESH,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 569/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jun 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K. Ravi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT
Section 148

section 69. Akberally Esufally vs. CIT (1966) 60 ITR 563 (Mad), CIT vs. M.K. Bros. (1986) 52 CTR (Guj) 228 : (1987) 163 ITR 249 (Guj). The Calcutta High Court in Mihir Chatterjee vs. CIT (1994) 118 CTR (Cal) 26 : (1994) 205 ITR 270 (Cal) held that where the facts on record clearly established that the explanations offered by the assessee

K.SURESH,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 572/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jun 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K. Ravi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT
Section 148

section 69. Akberally Esufally vs. CIT (1966) 60 ITR 563 (Mad), CIT vs. M.K. Bros. (1986) 52 CTR (Guj) 228 : (1987) 163 ITR 249 (Guj). The Calcutta High Court in Mihir Chatterjee vs. CIT (1994) 118 CTR (Cal) 26 : (1994) 205 ITR 270 (Cal) held that where the facts on record clearly established that the explanations offered by the assessee

K.SURESH,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 568/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jun 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K. Ravi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT
Section 148

section 69. Akberally Esufally vs. CIT (1966) 60 ITR 563 (Mad), CIT vs. M.K. Bros. (1986) 52 CTR (Guj) 228 : (1987) 163 ITR 249 (Guj). The Calcutta High Court in Mihir Chatterjee vs. CIT (1994) 118 CTR (Cal) 26 : (1994) 205 ITR 270 (Cal) held that where the facts on record clearly established that the explanations offered by the assessee

K.SURESH,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 570/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jun 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K. Ravi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT
Section 148

section 69. Akberally Esufally vs. CIT (1966) 60 ITR 563 (Mad), CIT vs. M.K. Bros. (1986) 52 CTR (Guj) 228 : (1987) 163 ITR 249 (Guj). The Calcutta High Court in Mihir Chatterjee vs. CIT (1994) 118 CTR (Cal) 26 : (1994) 205 ITR 270 (Cal) held that where the facts on record clearly established that the explanations offered by the assessee

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

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 in respect of certain incomes", no deduction shall be allowed