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.

142 results for “capital gains”+ Disallowanceclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,341Delhi1,552Chennai630Bangalore482Ahmedabad476Jaipur370Hyderabad338Kolkata325Pune209Indore171Chandigarh164Cochin142Raipur129Surat108Nagpur104Lucknow81Visakhapatnam66Rajkot64Panaji55Amritsar39Guwahati38Cuttack37Agra26Dehradun26Jodhpur25Jabalpur21Ranchi20Patna19Allahabad9Varanasi3

Key Topics

Section 250108Section 143(3)31Section 115J26Section 4024Addition to Income21Deduction20Disallowance20Section 5415Section 14814Capital Gains

SRI.JOSE THOMAS,ADOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ACIT,CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 212/COCH/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.Anil D.Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sundarasan S, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

disallowed by the Assessing Officer, holding that it was income from other sources. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner, who came to the conclusion that the assessee was liable to pay tax on capital gains

SRI.JOSE THOMAS,ADOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ACIT,CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

Showing 1–20 of 142 · Page 1 of 8

...
14
Section 153A13
Section 139(1)9

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 211/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.Anil D.Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sundarasan S, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

disallowed by the Assessing Officer, holding that it was income from other sources. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner, who came to the conclusion that the assessee was liable to pay tax on capital gains

MRS.GRACY BABU,ADOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 209/COCH/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.Anil D.Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sundarasan S, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

disallowed by the Assessing Officer, holding that it was income from other sources. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner, who came to the conclusion that the assessee was liable to pay tax on capital gains

MRS.GRACY BABU,ADOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 208/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.Anil D.Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sundarasan S, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

disallowed by the Assessing Officer, holding that it was income from other sources. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner, who came to the conclusion that the assessee was liable to pay tax on capital gains

MRS.REENA JOSE,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE,, KOTTAYAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 207/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.Anil D.Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sundarasan S, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

disallowed by the Assessing Officer, holding that it was income from other sources. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner, who came to the conclusion that the assessee was liable to pay tax on capital gains

KUMAR MADHAVANPILLAI.S,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ITO, WARD-1(4), TRIVANDRUM

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

ITA 461/COCH/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Oct 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Kumar Madhavanpillai S. Income Tax Officer -1(4) Chandra Press & Book Depot Aayakar Bhavan, Kowdiar P.O. Manjalikulam Road Thiruvananthapuram 695003 Vs. Thampanoor Thiruvananthapuram 695001 [Pan: Ajxps9299P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Anil Krishnan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Girly Albert, Sr. D.R
Section 50Section 54

capital gain by disallowing exemption under section 54/54F of the Act and without giving the benefit of the cost of improvement

REJI KRISHNAN,TRIVANDRUM vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the stay application is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 267/COCH/2024[AY 2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Jul 2024

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Dr. Abhishek Murali, CAFor Respondent: Sri. Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 234Section 54F

disallowance of claim made u/s.54F of the Act in respect of the capital gains on the transfer of the capital

MR.P.C.JOSE,,COCHIN vs. DCIT, COCHIN

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed, and the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 54/COCH/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Apr 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasp.C. Jose Deputy Commissioner Of Prop. Brothers Agencies Income Tax, Circle-2(1) Jews Street Vs. Kochi Ernakulam 682031 [Pan: Abbpj8250F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Deputy Commissioner Of P.C. Jose Income Tax, Circle-2(1) Prop. Brothers Agencies Kochi Vs. Jews Street Ernakulam 682031 [Pan: Abbpj8250F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: ----- None -----For Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

disallowed Rs. 9 lacs, so that the balance Rs.33.25 lacs was to be deducted in computing the capital gain for the current

SMT. MARIES JOSEPH,THRISSUR vs. DCIT, INT. TAXATION, KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 613/COCH/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 Jan 2023AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri. Arun Raj S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr AR
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 54F

Capital Gains. In the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing officer issued notice stating that the assessee is not eligible to claim exemption under section 54F of the Act as according to the AO, the assessee has acquired a residential house (apartment in Sobha City), other than the New Asset and therefore the conditions under section 54F is not satisfied

SMT. MARIES JOSEPH,THRISSUR vs. DCIT, INT. TAXATION, KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 566/COCH/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 Jan 2023AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri. Arun Raj S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr AR
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 54F

Capital Gains. In the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing officer issued notice stating that the assessee is not eligible to claim exemption under section 54F of the Act as according to the AO, the assessee has acquired a residential house (apartment in Sobha City), other than the New Asset and therefore the conditions under section 54F is not satisfied

GOPALAKRISHNAN PUKALAKKAT BALAKRISHNAN,ERNAKULAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, NON CORP CIRCLE 2(1), KOCHI

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

ITA 295/COCH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Respondent: Shri Sherry S Oommen
Section 143(3)Section 57

capital gains issue and therefore we do not find that the legal plea raised by the assessee will survive. Therefore the legal submissions made by the assessee is not accepted. 11. Insofar as the merits are concerned, the Ld.CIT(A) had given a chart in para no. 8.1 in which the details of the interest claim and the interest disallowed

DCIT CIRCLE 1(1) & TPS, THRISSUR, THRISSUR vs. KONUPARAMBAN OUSEPH ITTOOP, POTTA CHALAKKUDY

In the result appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 257/COCH/2025[2013]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year:2013-14 Konuparamban Ouseph Ittoop .......... Appellant Potta, Thrissur – 680722. Pan: Aacpi9545G Vs. Dcit .......... Respondent Thrissur. Assessment Year:2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Sathish John Kanichai, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 263

disallowance of cost of improvement while computing capital gains on sale of immovable property. On appeal before the CIT(A), CIT(A) remanded

ACIT, COCHIN vs. SRI.P.C.JOSE, COCHIN

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 84/COCH/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin18 Mar 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Keshav Dubey, Jm Assessment Year: 2008-09 P.C. Jose .......... Appellant Brothers Agencies, Jews Street Ernakulam 682031 [Pan: Abbpj8250F] Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax .......... Respondent Circle - 2(1), Kochi Assessment Year: 2008-09 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax .......... Appellant Circle - 2(1), Kochi Vs. P.C. Jose .......... Respondent Brothers Agencies, Jews Street Ernakulam 682031 [Pan: Abbpj8250F] Assessee By: Shri R. Krishnan, Ca Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das & Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 20.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.03.2025 P.C. Jose

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das &
Section 143(3)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 40

capital gains’ on protective basis. 7. The AO also made disallowance of Commission expenses of Rs. 2,50,000/-. The AO had made

ANNAMMA RAJIVE,KOLLAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE CENTRAL, KOLLAM

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

ITA 778/COCH/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 153A

capital gain on account of disallowance of cost of acquisition of capital asset at Rs.4,20,815 and agricultural income

RAMLA HAMEED,ALAPPUZHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes with the direction that the Assessing

ITA 393/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 48

capital gains arising from the sale of land and building and, more specifically, whether the cost of construction of the residential building, claimed at Rs.57,00,000, should be allowed as deduction under Section 48 of the Act. We find that the assessee had filed a valuation report from a registered valuer in support of the cost of construction. However

BENEESH KUMAR,KOCHI vs. ITO, NON CORP WARD 1(1), KOCHI

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

ITA 1161/COCH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 Beneesh Kumar .......... Appellant Madathuparambu House, Thattzham Road Vaduthala, Kochi 682023 [Pan: Agipb7548Q] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Non-Corporate Ward, Kochi Appellant By: Shri Ramesh Cherian, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Omanakutan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 19.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.04.2025

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh Cherian, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Omanakutan, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 282(1)Section 54Section 54F

capital gains’. The return of income for AY 2013-14 was filed on 02.12.2013 declaring total income of Rs. 2 Beneesh Kumar 2, 13,150/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), NC, Kochi (hereinafter called "the AO") vide order dated 25.02.2016 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income

VIJAYALEKSHMI K S,TRIVANDRUM vs. ITO WARD1(3), TRIVANDRUM

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

ITA 50/COCH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Vijayalekshmi K.S. The Income Tax Officer- 1(3) Tc 10/1148, Lekshmi Vilas Aayakr Bhavan, Kawdiar Vattiyoorkavu Vs. Thiruvananthapuram 695003 Thirivananthapuram 695013 [Pan: Abipl7317C] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri KMV Pandalai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Girly Albert, Sr. D.R
Section 54

disallowed the same and added the sum of Rs. 80,20,774/- as income under the head capital gain. Aggrieved

BEAVER ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED,KOCHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CORPORATE RANGE 1, KOCHI

ITA 896/COCH/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhgood Homes Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Corporate Range-1 3Rd Floor, Puthuran Plaza C.R. Building, Is Press Road Mg Road, Kpcc Junction Vs. Kochi 682018 Ernakulam 682011 [Pan: Aabcg0444L] (Appellant) (Respondent) Beaver Estates Pvt. Ltd Acit, Corporate Range-1 Asian School Of Architecture C.R. Building, Is Press Road & Design Innovation Kochi 682018 Vs. Silversand Island, Vytila Road Ernakulam 682019 [Pan: Aadcb0193M] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Section 250

Capital Gains and not under the head "Income from Business" 6. Without prejudice to the above grounds, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) and the learned assessing authority grossly erred in determining the alleged Income from Easement Rights fees at Rs: 73,30,680/ under the head Income from

GOOD HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED,KOCHI vs. ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), KOCHI

ITA 893/COCH/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhgood Homes Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Corporate Range-1 3Rd Floor, Puthuran Plaza C.R. Building, Is Press Road Mg Road, Kpcc Junction Vs. Kochi 682018 Ernakulam 682011 [Pan: Aabcg0444L] (Appellant) (Respondent) Beaver Estates Pvt. Ltd Acit, Corporate Range-1 Asian School Of Architecture C.R. Building, Is Press Road & Design Innovation Kochi 682018 Vs. Silversand Island, Vytila Road Ernakulam 682019 [Pan: Aadcb0193M] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Section 250

Capital Gains and not under the head "Income from Business" 6. Without prejudice to the above grounds, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) and the learned assessing authority grossly erred in determining the alleged Income from Easement Rights fees at Rs: 73,30,680/ under the head Income from

RAJU JOSEPH VAYALAT,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO, WARD-2(5), KOCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 273/COCH/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Aug 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

capital gain at Rs. 30,97,266 after disallowing the claim of cost of improvement. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee