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.

15 results for “capital gains”+ Section 928clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai120Delhi88Ahmedabad30Bangalore26Kolkata24Pune16Jaipur16Chennai15Hyderabad14Chandigarh13Visakhapatnam7Cuttack7Cochin6Guwahati5Indore3Surat3Karnataka2Panaji2Dehradun1Raipur1Ranchi1SC1Patna1Nagpur1

Key Topics

Section 14A18Section 270A12Section 143(3)10Section 271A8Section 1476Section 50C6Section 12A5Exemption5Section 1544Long Term Capital Gains

D.RAMGOPAL,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), COIMBATORE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 584/CHNY/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 583 /Chny/2022 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Shri. D. Ramagopal, V. Tax, 14-A, 10Th Street, Central Circle -1, Ganapathypudur, Coimbatore. Ganapathy, Coimbatore – 641 006. [Pan: Akgpr-3621-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 584/Chny/2022 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Principal Commissioner Of Shri. D. Ramagopal, V. Income Tax, 14-A, 10Th Street, Central Circle -2, Ganapathypudur, Chennai. Ganapathy, Coimbatore – 641 006. [Pan: Akgpr-3621-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. G.V. Jhabakh, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.10.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. G.V. Jhabakh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 132Section 153ASection 50C

928/- by rejecting certain expenditure claimed as cost of acquisition and improvement of the capital asset and the claim of agricultural income of Rs.7,43,000/- was ignored by considering the claim as bogus. 4. The assessee had sold the property at Coonoor and offered Capital Gain at Rs.85,069/- and later claiming a loss at Rs.6,644/- by filing

4
Deduction4
Disallowance4

D.RAMGOPAL,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), COIMBATORE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 583/CHNY/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 583 /Chny/2022 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Shri. D. Ramagopal, V. Tax, 14-A, 10Th Street, Central Circle -1, Ganapathypudur, Coimbatore. Ganapathy, Coimbatore – 641 006. [Pan: Akgpr-3621-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 584/Chny/2022 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Principal Commissioner Of Shri. D. Ramagopal, V. Income Tax, 14-A, 10Th Street, Central Circle -2, Ganapathypudur, Chennai. Ganapathy, Coimbatore – 641 006. [Pan: Akgpr-3621-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. G.V. Jhabakh, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.10.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. G.V. Jhabakh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 132Section 153ASection 50C

928/- by rejecting certain expenditure claimed as cost of acquisition and improvement of the capital asset and the claim of agricultural income of Rs.7,43,000/- was ignored by considering the claim as bogus. 4. The assessee had sold the property at Coonoor and offered Capital Gain at Rs.85,069/- and later claiming a loss at Rs.6,644/- by filing

M/S. RAGHUNATH GREEN POWER (P) LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3084/CHNY/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 3084 & 3086/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Raghunath Green Power Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 16, Cenotaph Road, Teynampet, Vs. Income Tax, Company Circle V(3), Chennai 600 018. Chennai. [Pan:Aadcr1513K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Chandrababu, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27.01.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 3, Chennai, Dated 18.09.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2014-15 Passed Against The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) R.W. Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] As Well As Against The Rectification Order Passed Under Section 154 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Chandrababu, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 50C

928/- and claimed expenses in connection with transfer at ₹67,87,640/-. However, the assessee has not furnished any proof for the expenses incurred and therefore, the Assessing Officer has taken the guideline value for stamp valuation purposes and worked out the sale consideration at ₹2,67,44,324/- for computation of capital gain. On appeal, even before

M/S. RAGHUNATH GREEN POWER (P) LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3086/CHNY/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 3084 & 3086/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Raghunath Green Power Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 16, Cenotaph Road, Teynampet, Vs. Income Tax, Company Circle V(3), Chennai 600 018. Chennai. [Pan:Aadcr1513K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Chandrababu, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27.01.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 3, Chennai, Dated 18.09.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2014-15 Passed Against The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) R.W. Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] As Well As Against The Rectification Order Passed Under Section 154 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Chandrababu, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 50C

928/- and claimed expenses in connection with transfer at ₹67,87,640/-. However, the assessee has not furnished any proof for the expenses incurred and therefore, the Assessing Officer has taken the guideline value for stamp valuation purposes and worked out the sale consideration at ₹2,67,44,324/- for computation of capital gain. On appeal, even before

TAMIL NADU CRICKET ASSOCIATION,CHENNAI vs. DDIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year

ITA 1536/CHNY/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2015AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1535, 1536 & 1537/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2010-11 M/S Tamil Nadu Cricket Association, The Deputy Director Of No.5, M.A.Chidambaram Stadium, V. Income Tax (Exemptions), Victoria Hostel Road, Chennai - 600 034. Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005. Pan : Aaaat 0398 M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri V. Ravichandran, CAFor Respondent: Shri N. Rengaraj, CIT
Section 12A

928/- as application of income. The Assessing Officer found that the income was re-computed after taking into account the receipts and payments of South Africa Test Match and Afro Asia Cup Match separately. However, the Assessing Officer rejected the claim of the assessee for depreciation by placing reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in Escorts v. Union

TAMIL NADU CRICKET ASSOCIATION,CHENNAI vs. DDIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year

ITA 1537/CHNY/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2015AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1535, 1536 & 1537/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2010-11 M/S Tamil Nadu Cricket Association, The Deputy Director Of No.5, M.A.Chidambaram Stadium, V. Income Tax (Exemptions), Victoria Hostel Road, Chennai - 600 034. Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005. Pan : Aaaat 0398 M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri V. Ravichandran, CAFor Respondent: Shri N. Rengaraj, CIT
Section 12A

928/- as application of income. The Assessing Officer found that the income was re-computed after taking into account the receipts and payments of South Africa Test Match and Afro Asia Cup Match separately. However, the Assessing Officer rejected the claim of the assessee for depreciation by placing reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in Escorts v. Union

TAMIL NADU CRICKET ASSOCIATION,CHENNAI vs. DDIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year

ITA 1535/CHNY/2014[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2015AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1535, 1536 & 1537/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2010-11 M/S Tamil Nadu Cricket Association, The Deputy Director Of No.5, M.A.Chidambaram Stadium, V. Income Tax (Exemptions), Victoria Hostel Road, Chennai - 600 034. Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005. Pan : Aaaat 0398 M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri V. Ravichandran, CAFor Respondent: Shri N. Rengaraj, CIT
Section 12A

928/- as application of income. The Assessing Officer found that the income was re-computed after taking into account the receipts and payments of South Africa Test Match and Afro Asia Cup Match separately. However, the Assessing Officer rejected the claim of the assessee for depreciation by placing reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in Escorts v. Union

A.SENTHIL KUMAR,COIMBATORE vs. ITO, COIMBATORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for 5

ITA 19/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 19/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2008-2009

For Appellant: Shri. Arjun Raj, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. M. Murali Mohan, JCIT
Section 148Section 251(1)(a)Section 54B

Section 54 F of ITA Nos.19 to 22/Mds/2017. :- 6 -: the Income Tax Act, 1961. I have also spent an amount of Rs.19,77,928/ - for constructing a residential house. This amount of Rs.19,77,928/- was been received from my mother (Pappammal) through a joint construction agreement. I am now filing the return of income for the assessment year

LIFECELL INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3334/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Jan 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3334/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Lifecell International Assistant Commissioner Of Private Ltd., V. Income Tax, No. 26, Vandalur Corporate Circle 4(1), Kelambakkam Main Road, Chennai. Keelakkottaiyur, Chennai. [Pan: Aaeca-7997-B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Ajith Kumar Choradia, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.01.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Ajith Kumar Choradia, CAFor Respondent: Shri. S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT

capital expenditure disallowed under section 35(2AB) under the provisions of Section 35(l)(iv) read with Section 35(2)(ia) of the Act. In connection with computation of tax: 23. The CIT(A) failed to note that the Appellant was entitled to credit of tax paid u/s 115JAA of the Act which was not provided

ST.JOSEPHS EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-193), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 3293/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. V. Balaji, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 270ASection 271A

928/-. The assessee is noted to have filed rectification application on 28.01.2022 against the assessment order dated 29.09.2021 which according to the Ld.AR has not been disposed off till date, which is pending for rectification before the AO. 18. And the AO meanwhile initiated the penalty proceedings by issuing notice u/s.271AAB(1) dated 28.09.2021 for AY 2020-21 which

ST. JOSEPHS INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCOT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 3295/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. V. Balaji, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 270ASection 271A

928/-. The assessee is noted to have filed rectification application on 28.01.2022 against the assessment order dated 29.09.2021 which according to the Ld.AR has not been disposed off till date, which is pending for rectification before the AO. 18. And the AO meanwhile initiated the penalty proceedings by issuing notice u/s.271AAB(1) dated 28.09.2021 for AY 2020-21 which

RECKITT BENCKISER SCHOLL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KANCHEEPURAM vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 756/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.756/Mds/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Reckitt Benckiser Scholl The Deputy Commissioner Of India Private Limited V. Income Tax, (Formerly Known As M/S. Corporate Circle – V (1), Reckitt Benekiser Scholl India Chennai Limited). Plot F 73/74, Sipcot Industrial Park, Irungattukottai, Sriperumbudur, Kancheepuram – 602 117

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chidambaram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Milind Madhukar Bhusari, CIT
Section 10BSection 143(3)

Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Act on 11.01.2016 making the above adjustments computing the total income of Rs.11,66,01,928/- on which the assessee filed appeal before us. 6.0 Ground No.2.2 relates to the working capital adjustment. The assessee requested for working capital adjustment among the company comparable companies. The TPO in his order had rejected

IDFC LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CO. CIRCLE - II (3),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 677/CHNY/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.877/Chny/2018 & 677/Chny/2020 िनधा&रण वष& /Assessment Years: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Farookh V. Irani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vi)Section 36(1)(vii)

capital and reserves exceeded the investment made in equity and courts have held that if own funds exceeded the investments in dividend-yielding assets, the general presumption would be that assessee’s own funds were used to make such investment. However, in this case, the assessee until AY 2006- 07 , consistently claimed , that borrowed funds were used for dividend- yielding

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI vs. IDFC LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 878/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.877/Chny/2018 & 677/Chny/2020 िनधा&रण वष& /Assessment Years: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Farookh V. Irani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vi)Section 36(1)(vii)

capital and reserves exceeded the investment made in equity and courts have held that if own funds exceeded the investments in dividend-yielding assets, the general presumption would be that assessee’s own funds were used to make such investment. However, in this case, the assessee until AY 2006- 07 , consistently claimed , that borrowed funds were used for dividend- yielding

IDFC FIRST BANK LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT-CORP CIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly-allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 776/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 1Section 143(3)Section 14A

section 14A of the Act r.w.rule 8D of the Rules as per law after considering the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly this issue of the assessee’s appeal is remanded back to the file of the AO. The order of CIT(A) and that of the AO are set aside and matter referred back to the AO. This