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.

64 results for “capital gains”+ Penaltyclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,028Delhi1,718Ahmedabad682Jaipur489Chennai483Bangalore423Kolkata379Hyderabad306Pune295Surat228Chandigarh198Indore189Karnataka129Raipur94Visakhapatnam94Agra91Nagpur73Rajkot68Cochin64Lucknow63Cuttack50Amritsar40Calcutta39Ranchi29Patna24Dehradun22SC19Jodhpur17Guwahati17Telangana14Allahabad8Panaji7Varanasi6Jabalpur5Punjab & Haryana3Gauhati1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1Orissa1Rajasthan1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)55Section 271(1)(c)44Disallowance28Section 26327Section 37(1)27Section 14A26Section 54F25Penalty17Deduction15Section 40

SRI.ESSA ISMAIL SAIT,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ACIT,CIR-2(1),, ERNAKULAM

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

ITA 605/COCH/2005[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

capital gain at Rs.20,27,017/-. I.T.A. Nos.605/Coch/2005 & others 10.2 The contention of the Ld. AR is that the statement recorded by DDI(Inv.- II), Ernakulam on 23/04/1999 u/s. 131 of the Act has no evidentiary value as it is not supported by any corroborative material. Under section 131 of the Act, the income tax authority is empowered to examine

THE ITO, WD-2, THODUPUZHA, THODUPUZHA vs. SRI.TOMY MATHEW PARTNER OF MATHAI SONS, KOTHAMANGALAM

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

ITA 419/COCH/2007[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin

Showing 1–20 of 64 · Page 1 of 4

14
Addition to Income14
Capital Gains14
17 Jan 2019
AY 1999-2000

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

capital gain at Rs.20,27,017/-. I.T.A. Nos.605/Coch/2005 & others 10.2 The contention of the Ld. AR is that the statement recorded by DDI(Inv.- II), Ernakulam on 23/04/1999 u/s. 131 of the Act has no evidentiary value as it is not supported by any corroborative material. Under section 131 of the Act, the income tax authority is empowered to examine

THE ITO, WD-2, THODUPUZHA, THODUPUZHA vs. SRI.E.J.SONY, KOTHAMANGALAM

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

ITA 355/COCH/2006[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

capital gain at Rs.20,27,017/-. I.T.A. Nos.605/Coch/2005 & others 10.2 The contention of the Ld. AR is that the statement recorded by DDI(Inv.- II), Ernakulam on 23/04/1999 u/s. 131 of the Act has no evidentiary value as it is not supported by any corroborative material. Under section 131 of the Act, the income tax authority is empowered to examine

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI.E.M.PAUL, EDAKATTUKUDIYIL, KOTHAMANGALAM

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

ITA 449/COCH/2007[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

capital gain at Rs.20,27,017/-. I.T.A. Nos.605/Coch/2005 & others 10.2 The contention of the Ld. AR is that the statement recorded by DDI(Inv.- II), Ernakulam on 23/04/1999 u/s. 131 of the Act has no evidentiary value as it is not supported by any corroborative material. Under section 131 of the Act, the income tax authority is empowered to examine

THE ITO, WARD-2, THODUPUZHA, THODUPUZHA vs. SRI.MARTIN JOHNY, KOTHAMANGALAM

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

ITA 354/COCH/2006[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

capital gain at Rs.20,27,017/-. I.T.A. Nos.605/Coch/2005 & others 10.2 The contention of the Ld. AR is that the statement recorded by DDI(Inv.- II), Ernakulam on 23/04/1999 u/s. 131 of the Act has no evidentiary value as it is not supported by any corroborative material. Under section 131 of the Act, the income tax authority is empowered to examine

THE ACIT, CIR-1(1), ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI.JOSE MATHEW, M/S.E.V.MTHAI & SONS, KOTHAMANGALAM

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

ITA 450/COCH/2007[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

capital gain at Rs.20,27,017/-. I.T.A. Nos.605/Coch/2005 & others 10.2 The contention of the Ld. AR is that the statement recorded by DDI(Inv.- II), Ernakulam on 23/04/1999 u/s. 131 of the Act has no evidentiary value as it is not supported by any corroborative material. Under section 131 of the Act, the income tax authority is empowered to examine

THEACIT, CIR-1(1),EKM, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI.E.M.JOHNY, KOTHAMANGALAM

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

ITA 453/COCH/2007[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

capital gain at Rs.20,27,017/-. I.T.A. Nos.605/Coch/2005 & others 10.2 The contention of the Ld. AR is that the statement recorded by DDI(Inv.- II), Ernakulam on 23/04/1999 u/s. 131 of the Act has no evidentiary value as it is not supported by any corroborative material. Under section 131 of the Act, the income tax authority is empowered to examine

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI.MATHAI XAVIER, KOTHAMANGALAM

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

ITA 451/COCH/2007[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

capital gain at Rs.20,27,017/-. I.T.A. Nos.605/Coch/2005 & others 10.2 The contention of the Ld. AR is that the statement recorded by DDI(Inv.- II), Ernakulam on 23/04/1999 u/s. 131 of the Act has no evidentiary value as it is not supported by any corroborative material. Under section 131 of the Act, the income tax authority is empowered to examine

M/S. JOSEPH GEORGE & CO.,,PATHANAPURAM vs. THE ITO, KOLLAM

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

ITA 323/COCH/2016[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2017AY 1996-97

Bench: S/Shri Abraham P. George, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

capital gains by the ITAT, the Assessing Officer levied minimum penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs.2

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 gain since she has paid an amount of Rs 91,81,814/- for investment in property at "Skyline Infinity'. 7. During the course of hearing the CIT(A) called on the assessee to furnish the details of all the properties owned by the assessee including those owned in abroad. The assessee furnished the details as required from which

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 gain since she has paid an amount of Rs 91,81,814/- for investment in property at "Skyline Infinity'. 7. During the course of hearing the CIT(A) called on the assessee to furnish the details of all the properties owned by the assessee including those owned in abroad. The assessee furnished the details as required from which

THE ITO, COCHIN vs. SRI.AMBADY KRISHNA MENON, COCHIN

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection filed

ITA 4/COCH/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 139(1)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

penalty imposed, which are distinguishable from the facts of the assessee's case. 2.2 The learned CIT(Appeals) erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee had not offered the correct long term capital gains

JAMES KUDAKUTHIYIL CHACKO,KERALA vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 865/COCH/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Sri R. Krishnan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ilaiyaraja K.S., Sr. D.R
Section 271(1)(c)

capital gain to the tune of Rs.52,96,329/- in respect of Edapally property and levied penalty @ 100% tax sought

JAMES KUDAKUTHIYIL CHACKO,KERALA vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 864/COCH/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Sri R. Krishnan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ilaiyaraja K.S., Sr. D.R
Section 271(1)(c)

capital gain to the tune of Rs.52,96,329/- in respect of Edapally property and levied penalty @ 100% tax sought

SRI.K.RAJAGOPAL MENON,COCHIN vs. THE DCIT, ERNAKULAM

ITA 486/COCH/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. George JosephFor Respondent: Sri. A.Dhanaraj, Sr.DR
Section 271(1)(c)

penalty proceedings were initiated for the reason that the assessee had suppressed income from long term capital gains by showing

MR.THOMAS DANIEL,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ITO, WARD-4, THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 68/COCH/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Nov 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. No.68/Coch/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15

Section 194ASection 40Section 44A

Capital gains. F. - Income from other sources. ' " D.—Profits and gains of business or profession Profits and gains of business or profession. 28. The following income shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession",- (i) the profits and gains of any business or profession which was carried on by the assessee

PALAKKAL KRISHNANKUTTY RAGHAVAN,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GURUVAYOOR

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

ITA 740/COCH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: None
Section 144Section 148Section 270ASection 69A

capital gains. Subsequently, the AO also proposed to impose penalty u/s. 270A of the Act for which also the assessee

PALAKKAL KRISHNANKUTTY RAGHAVAN,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GURUVAYOOR

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

ITA 741/COCH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: None
Section 144Section 148Section 270ASection 69A

capital gains. Subsequently, the AO also proposed to impose penalty u/s. 270A of the Act for which also the assessee

ASPINWALL & COMPANY LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result,the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 60/COCH/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am&George George K., Jm

Section 14A

capital reduction is not allowed in the year under consideration, the same be allowed to be claimed in the computation of book profits in AY 2007-08 when the order of Kerala High Court was passed. 10. Regarding provision for lease rent of Rs. 61,00,000/-, the facts of the case are that the assessee debited an amount

ASPINWALL & COMPANY LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result,the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 61/COCH/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am&George George K., Jm

Section 14A

capital reduction is not allowed in the year under consideration, the same be allowed to be claimed in the computation of book profits in AY 2007-08 when the order of Kerala High Court was passed. 10. Regarding provision for lease rent of Rs. 61,00,000/-, the facts of the case are that the assessee debited an amount