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.

17 results for “capital gains”+ Section 80P(2)(iv)clear

Sorted by relevance

Bangalore100Karnataka55Mumbai49Raipur44Panaji41Delhi41Cochin26Hyderabad25Visakhapatnam20Kolkata18Chennai17Pune12Ahmedabad10Jaipur10Telangana6Chandigarh5Nagpur4Cuttack4Surat4SC3Varanasi3Lucknow2Indore2Rajkot1

Key Topics

Section 14A49Section 80P(2)(a)13Section 36(1)13Disallowance12Section 269S10Deduction9Section 271D8Addition to Income7Section 143(3)6

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WANAPARTHY BLOCK vs. TAMILNADU SPECIAL POLICE EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE, TSP CAMP

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 363/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:363/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Income Tax Officer, Tamilnadu Special Police Non-Corporate Ward -7(3), Vs. Employees Cooperative, Chennai – 600 034. Avadi, Chennai – 600 054. [Pan:Aafat-0366-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. Sita Krishnamoorthy, J.C.I.T. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. G. Reddi Prakash, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Filed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, For The Assessment Year 2020-21, Dated 11.10.2024. 2. At The Outset, We Find That There Is A Delay Of 34 Days In Appeal Filed By The Revenue, For Which Petition For Condonation Of Delay Along With Reasons For Delay Has Been Filed. After Considering The Petition Filed By The Revenue & Also Hearing Both The Parties, We Find That There Is A Reasonable Cause For The Revenue In Not Filing Appeal On Or Before The Due Date Prescribed Under The Law & Thus

For Appellant: Ms. Sita Krishnamoorthy, J.C.I.TFor Respondent: Shri. G. Reddi Prakash, C.A
Section 80PSection 80P(1)Section 80P(2)
Section 1326
Depreciation6
Section 41(1)4
Section 80P(2)(a)
Section 80P(2)(d)

iv. Land and Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. ITO (2017) 46 CCH 52 (Mum). v. ITO Vs. Shree Keshorai Patan Sahakari Sugar Mill ITA Nos. 418 & 419/JP/2017 (Jaipur). vi. M/s C. Green Cooperative Housing and Society Ltd. Vs. ITO21(3)(2), Mumbai (ITA No. 1343/Mum/2017, dated 31.03.2017 vii. Marvwanjee Cama Park Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. ITO-Range- 20(2

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

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

section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The Delhi High Court in the case of Mr. Vijay Gupta decided on 20.03.2016 referred to the decision of the :-7-: Supreme Court reported in 261 ITR 367 and the Apex Court in the said decision has held that if the assessee has by mistake or inadvertently or on account of ignorance included

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 5(1), CHENNAI vs. REPCO HOME FINANCE P LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA no

ITA 2885/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jun 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: JCITFor Respondent: Shri M. Viswanathan, C.A
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 36(1)(viii)

capital and of the general reserves of the specified entity, no allowance under this clause shall be made in respect of such excess. Explanation.- in this clause, (a) "specified entity" means,- (i) a financial corporation specified in section 4A of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) ; (ii) a financial corporation which is a public sector company ; (iii) a banking

ITO, NAMAKKAL vs. TIRUCHENGODE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING SOCIETY LIMITED, NAMAKKAL

In the result, the Revenues’ appeals are allowed and the assessee’s COs, dismissed

ITA 363/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: 02.08.2017
Section 80P(1)Section 80P(2)(a)

section (1) shall be the following, namely:— (a) in the case of a co-operative society engaged in— (i) carrying on the business of banking or providing credit facilities to its members, or (ii) ……. (iii) the marketing of agricultural produce grown by its 3 ITA Nos.362 & 363/Mds/2017 & COs. 46 & 47/Mds/2017 (AYs 2008-09 & 2010-11) ITO v. Tiruchengode Agricultural Producers

ITO, NAMAKKAL vs. TIRUCHENGODE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING SOCIETY LIMITED, NAMAKKAL

In the result, the Revenues’ appeals are allowed and the assessee’s COs, dismissed

ITA 362/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: 02.08.2017
Section 80P(1)Section 80P(2)(a)

section (1) shall be the following, namely:— (a) in the case of a co-operative society engaged in— (i) carrying on the business of banking or providing credit facilities to its members, or (ii) ……. (iii) the marketing of agricultural produce grown by its 3 ITA Nos.362 & 363/Mds/2017 & COs. 46 & 47/Mds/2017 (AYs 2008-09 & 2010-11) ITO v. Tiruchengode Agricultural Producers

R. ANBUVEL RAJAN ,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL RANGEL, CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 2165/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

Section 132Section 269SSection 271D

80P; (iii)"loan or deposit" (iii)"loan or deposit" means loan or deposit of money; (iv) "specified sum" means any sum of money receivable, whether as (iv) "specified sum" means any sum of money receivable, whether as (iv) "specified sum" means any sum of money receivable, whether as advance or otherwise, in advance or otherwise, in relation to transfer

R. ANBUVEL RAJAN ,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL RANGE 1, CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 2166/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

Section 132Section 269SSection 271D

80P; (iii)"loan or deposit" (iii)"loan or deposit" means loan or deposit of money; (iv) "specified sum" means any sum of money receivable, whether as (iv) "specified sum" means any sum of money receivable, whether as (iv) "specified sum" means any sum of money receivable, whether as advance or otherwise, in advance or otherwise, in relation to transfer

ACIT CIRCLE 1, KUMBAKONAM vs. CITY UNION BANK LIMITED, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA 1316/CHNY/2018

ITA 1316/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri. S. Ananthan,C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Sailendra Mamidi, IRS
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 40Section 41(1)

iv) ₹47,05,085 ₹1,70,94,716 8 Claim of deduction u/s.36(1) (viii) ₹2,52,39,819 9 Excess depreciation on ATMs 10 Interest on VIP deposits disallowed ₹5,49,77,592 u/s.40(a) (ia) of the Act 5. Being aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, an appeal was preferred before

CITY UNION BANK LIMITED,KUMBAKONAM vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA 1316/CHNY/2018

ITA 1130/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri. S. Ananthan,C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Sailendra Mamidi, IRS
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 40Section 41(1)

iv) ₹47,05,085 ₹1,70,94,716 8 Claim of deduction u/s.36(1) (viii) ₹2,52,39,819 9 Excess depreciation on ATMs 10 Interest on VIP deposits disallowed ₹5,49,77,592 u/s.40(a) (ia) of the Act 5. Being aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, an appeal was preferred before

ACIT CIRCLE 1, KUMBAKONAM vs. CITY UNION BANK LIMITED, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA 1316/CHNY/2018

ITA 1315/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri. S. Ananthan,C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Sailendra Mamidi, IRS
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 40Section 41(1)

iv) ₹47,05,085 ₹1,70,94,716 8 Claim of deduction u/s.36(1) (viii) ₹2,52,39,819 9 Excess depreciation on ATMs 10 Interest on VIP deposits disallowed ₹5,49,77,592 u/s.40(a) (ia) of the Act 5. Being aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, an appeal was preferred before

CITY UNION BANK LIMITED,KUMBAKONAM vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA 1316/CHNY/2018

ITA 1129/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri. S. Ananthan,C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Sailendra Mamidi, IRS
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 40Section 41(1)

iv) ₹47,05,085 ₹1,70,94,716 8 Claim of deduction u/s.36(1) (viii) ₹2,52,39,819 9 Excess depreciation on ATMs 10 Interest on VIP deposits disallowed ₹5,49,77,592 u/s.40(a) (ia) of the Act 5. Being aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, an appeal was preferred before

THE KARUR VYSYA BANK LTD.,KARUR vs. JCIT, TRICHY

Accordingly, the claim of the assessee that it had to be allowed on actual payment basis was, in our opinion, rightly allowed by the CIT(Appeals)

ITA 2326/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Mar 2017AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Pathlavath Peerya, CIT
Section 14A

80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act, the principle is equally applicable to all banks/commercial banks, to which Banking Regulation Act, 1949 applies. 4. In the light of the Supreme Court’s decision in the matter, the issue is well settled. Accordingly, the Board has decided that no appeals may henceforth be filed on this ground by the officers

DCIT, TRICHY vs. THE KARUR VYSYA BANK LTD., KARUR

Accordingly, the claim of the assessee that it had to be allowed on actual payment basis was, in our opinion, rightly allowed by the CIT(Appeals)

ITA 2433/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Pathlavath Peerya, CIT
Section 14A

80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act, the principle is equally applicable to all banks/commercial banks, to which Banking Regulation Act, 1949 applies. 4. In the light of the Supreme Court’s decision in the matter, the issue is well settled. Accordingly, the Board has decided that no appeals may henceforth be filed on this ground by the officers

THE KARUR VYSYA BANK LTD.,KARUR vs. JCIT, TRICHY

Accordingly, the claim of the assessee that it had to be allowed on actual payment basis was, in our opinion, rightly allowed by the CIT(Appeals)

ITA 2325/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Pathlavath Peerya, CIT
Section 14A

80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act, the principle is equally applicable to all banks/commercial banks, to which Banking Regulation Act, 1949 applies. 4. In the light of the Supreme Court’s decision in the matter, the issue is well settled. Accordingly, the Board has decided that no appeals may henceforth be filed on this ground by the officers

DCIT, TRICHY vs. M/S. THE KARUR VYSYA BANK. LTD., KARUR

Accordingly, the claim of the assessee that it had to be allowed on actual payment basis was, in our opinion, rightly allowed by the CIT(Appeals)

ITA 2649/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Mar 2017AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Pathlavath Peerya, CIT
Section 14A

80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act, the principle is equally applicable to all banks/commercial banks, to which Banking Regulation Act, 1949 applies. 4. In the light of the Supreme Court’s decision in the matter, the issue is well settled. Accordingly, the Board has decided that no appeals may henceforth be filed on this ground by the officers

COMPUTER AGE MANAGEMENT SERVICES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT LTU 2 , CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for all the assessment years are treated as partly allowed

ITA 1142/CHNY/2018[214-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Dec 2018

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1140, 1141 & 1142/Chny/2018. "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. Computer Age Management Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Services Pvt. Ltd, Income Tax, Rayala Towers, 3Rd Floor, Ltu-2, 158, Anna Salai, Chennai. Chennai 600 002. [Pan Aaacc 3035G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Sandeep Bagmar, R. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. Clement Ramesh
Section 14A

80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act but would also be applicable to all banks/commercial banks, to which Banking Regulation Act, 1949 applies. 38. From this, the Punjab and Haryana High Court pointed out that this circular carves out a distinction between "stock-in-trade" and "investment" and provides that if the motive behind purchase and sale of shares

COMPUTER AGE MANAGEMENT SERVICES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT LTU 2 , CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for all the assessment years are treated as partly allowed

ITA 1140/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Dec 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1140, 1141 & 1142/Chny/2018. "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. Computer Age Management Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Services Pvt. Ltd, Income Tax, Rayala Towers, 3Rd Floor, Ltu-2, 158, Anna Salai, Chennai. Chennai 600 002. [Pan Aaacc 3035G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Sandeep Bagmar, R. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. Clement Ramesh
Section 14A

80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act but would also be applicable to all banks/commercial banks, to which Banking Regulation Act, 1949 applies. 38. From this, the Punjab and Haryana High Court pointed out that this circular carves out a distinction between "stock-in-trade" and "investment" and provides that if the motive behind purchase and sale of shares