Search: capital gains | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

82 results for “capital gains”+ Reassessmentclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,548 Delhi1,194 Chennai553 Bangalore490 Jaipur486 Ahmedabad362 Kolkata287 Hyderabad219 Pune193 Chandigarh155 Indore130 Surat100 Raipur94 Visakhapatnam87 Cochin82 Nagpur78 Rajkot58 Guwahati55 Amritsar55 Lucknow49 Agra34 Karnataka32 Patna31 Ranchi21 Cuttack20 Jodhpur17 SC12 Jabalpur11 Telangana10 Dehradun10 Allahabad9 Varanasi5 Panaji4 Kerala3 Calcutta3 Orissa2 K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1 Gauhati1 A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1 Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 14A135 Section 143(3)50 Addition to Income46 Section 14836 Reassessment34 Section 14732 Disallowance28 Section 153A24 Section 13224 Section 263

THE ACIT, CIR-1(1), KOCHI, KOCHI vs. SRI.PRINCE JOSEPH, KOCHI

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

ITA 272/COCH/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Sept 2018AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Smt.A.S.BindhuFor Respondent: Sri.Mathew Joseph

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(47)

capital gains on the impugned property measuring 62 cents and completed the reassessment. The additions under the capital gain was based

SRI. PAUL VADAKKUMCHERRY,TRICHUR vs. THE DCIT, TRICHUR

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

Showing 1–20 of 82 · Page 1 of 5

23

ITA 129/COCH/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Dec 2018AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Sri.T.M.SreedharanFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)

capital gains, had taken the purchase cost at Rs.69.30 lakh instead of Rs.8,17,500 disclosed in the sale deed. 4.3 In the course of reassessment

SMT SUNITHA PREM VICTOR,TRIVANDRUM vs. ITO WARD 2(3), TRIVANDRUM

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

ITA 1009/COCH/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dassunita Prem Victor The Income Tax Officer Tc 25/2813 Mathrubhumi Road Ward – 2(3) Vs. Vanchiyoor, Trivandrum 695035 Trivandrum [Pan:Akopv8566C] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Divya Ravindran, Advocate Revenue By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 11.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.10.2023 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.10.2022 By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [Cit(A)],Partly Allowing Her Appeal Contesting Her Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’) Dated 27.12.2016 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Returned Her Income For The Relevant Year On 18.12.2014 At Rs.5,67,250, Claiming Deduction Under Section 54 Of The Act At Rs.91,05,096 In Respect Of Construction Of A Residential House During The Relevant Year Against The Capital Gain Arising To Her On Sale Of 3 Pieces Of Land Sold During March, 2013 To November, 2013. The Claim Was, Admitting Her Mistake Inasmuch As The Capital Asset/S Sold Was Not A Residential House, Requested By The Assessee Vide Letter Dated 29.11.2016 For Being Considered U/S. 54F Of The Act; She Not Owning Any Other Residential House On The Date Of Transfer/S. Earlier, On 25.11.2016, A Revised Statement Of Income Was Filed Claiming Exemption With Reference To The Total

For Appellant: Ms. Divya Ravindran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54F

reassessment (Niranjan & Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1986] 159 ITR 153 (SC)). The inference of equal share in house property is, under the circumstances, valid. 4.3 We, however, find that the capital gain

SAHADEVAN K ,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, WD-1(3), TRIVANDRUM

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

ITA 116/COCH/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Sri.Mathew JosephFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR

Section 10(37)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

capital gain u/s 10(37) of the I.T.Act. In the revisionary order passed u/s 263 of the I.T.Act, the CIT set aside the reassessment

SAHADEVAN K ,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, WD-1(3), TRIVANDRUM

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

ITA 464/COCH/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Sri.Mathew JosephFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR

Section 10(37)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

capital gain u/s 10(37) of the I.T.Act. In the revisionary order passed u/s 263 of the I.T.Act, the CIT set aside the reassessment

SRI.JOHN MATHEW N,ALAPPUZHA vs. THE ITO, WD-2, ALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 81/COCH/2018[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Feb 2023AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Sandeep Gosainshri John Mathew N. The Income Tax Officer Neroth House Ward - 2, Alleppey Vs. No. 1, Jubilee Road Alappuzha [Pan: Acupm8885D] Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri Anil D. Nair & Shri P.K. Biju, Advocates Respondent By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 03.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.02.2023 O R D E R Per Bench This Appeal By The Assessee Challenges The Validity Of The Reassessment Under Section 147 Read With Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) Dated 20.11.2007 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2001-02, Since Upheld In First Appeal Vide Order Dated 24.01.2018 By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Kottayam (‘Cit(A)’ For Short). 2.1 At The Outset, Shri Anil D. Nair, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee-Appellant, Would Submit That The Basis Of The Assessee’S Challenge Is Two-Fold: (A) Non-Supply Of The Reasons Recorded; & (B) True & Full Disclosure Of All Material Facts Relating To The Income Escaping Assessment By The Assessee Per His Return Of Income.

For Appellant: Shri Anil D. Nair &For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148(2)Section 230ASection 234B

reassessment, which only requires a genuine, valid and honest reason/s to believe, held in good faith, of which what better proof in the instant case than the assesseee himself narrating the facts resulting in accrual of capital gains

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 by filing original return u/s.139(1) on 29thSeptember, 2013. It is settled position of law that the assessment of completed years, which were not pending on the date of search cannot be reopened u/s.153A, without there being any incriminating material unearthed during the course of search. The relevant observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

THE ITO,, TRIVANDRUM vs. SMT.PADMAJA DEVI AMMA, CALICUT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 235/COCH/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Sri. T.M.Sreedharan

Section 10(37)Section 148

capital gains tax for land sold to Vizhinjam International Seaport Limited. The assessee filed letter stated that the original return filed may be taken as one filed in response to notice u/s 148 of the I.T.Act. During the course of reassessment

THE ITO,, TRIVANDRUM vs. SRI.HARIMURALI SREEDHARA PANICKER, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 207/COCH/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Sri. T.M.Sreedharan

Section 10(37)Section 148

capital gains tax for land sold to Vizhinjam International Seaport Limited. The assessee filed letter stated that the original return filed may be taken as one filed in response to notice u/s 148 of the I.T.Act. During the course of reassessment

DR.K.MOIDU,KOZHIKKODE vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOZHIKKODE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 493/COCH/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Nov 2019AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Sri.Surendranath RaoFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 153C

reassessment of the connected person, was the period of twenty one months from the end of the financial year in which the last of authorizations for search u/s 132 was executed or nine months from the end of the financial year in which the books of account of documents or assets seized or requisitioned are handed over u/s 153C

DR.K.MOIDU,KOZHIKKODE vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOZHIKKODE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 497/COCH/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Sri.Surendranath RaoFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 153C

reassessment of the connected person, was the period of twenty one months from the end of the financial year in which the last of authorizations for search u/s 132 was executed or nine months from the end of the financial year in which the books of account of documents or assets seized or requisitioned are handed over u/s 153C

DR.K.MOIDU,KOZHIKKODE vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOZHIKKODE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 498/COCH/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sri.Surendranath RaoFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 153C

reassessment of the connected person, was the period of twenty one months from the end of the financial year in which the last of authorizations for search u/s 132 was executed or nine months from the end of the financial year in which the books of account of documents or assets seized or requisitioned are handed over u/s 153C

DR.K.MOIDU,KOZHIKKODE vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOZHIKKODE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 492/COCH/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Nov 2019AY 2006-07

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

For Appellant: Sri.Surendranath RaoFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 153C

reassessment of the connected person, was the period of twenty one months from the end of the financial year in which the last of authorizations for search u/s 132 was executed or nine months from the end of the financial year in which the books of account of documents or assets seized or requisitioned are handed over u/s 153C

DR.K.MOIDU,KOZHIKKODE vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOZHIKKODE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 496/COCH/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Sri.Surendranath RaoFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 153C

reassessment of the connected person, was the period of twenty one months from the end of the financial year in which the last of authorizations for search u/s 132 was executed or nine months from the end of the financial year in which the books of account of documents or assets seized or requisitioned are handed over u/s 153C

DR.K.MOIDU,KOZHIKKODE vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOZHIKKODE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 495/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Nov 2019AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Sri.Surendranath RaoFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 153C

reassessment of the connected person, was the period of twenty one months from the end of the financial year in which the last of authorizations for search u/s 132 was executed or nine months from the end of the financial year in which the books of account of documents or assets seized or requisitioned are handed over u/s 153C

DR.K.MOIDU,KOZHIKKODE vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOZHIKKODE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 494/COCH/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Nov 2019AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Sri.Surendranath RaoFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 153C

reassessment of the connected person, was the period of twenty one months from the end of the financial year in which the last of authorizations for search u/s 132 was executed or nine months from the end of the financial year in which the books of account of documents or assets seized or requisitioned are handed over u/s 153C

BENNY JOHN,KOTTAYAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ,WARD 1, KOTTAYAM, KOTTAYAM

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

ITA 671/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm Assessment Year: 2015-16 Benny John .......... Appellant Arookuzhippil House, Kappumthala P.O. Kottayam 686613 [Pan: Afjpj8619L] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kottayam ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Lukose Joseph Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 03.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri Lukose JosephFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 147Section 148

capital gains’. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. The learned counsel for the assessee contended that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the ground relating to validity of notice u/s. 148 of the Act raised vide ground No. 4. Therefore, it is prayed that the matter be remanded back

M/S.MALANKARA PLANTATIONS LTD,KOTTAYAM vs. ACIT, CIR-1, KOTTAYAM

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

ITA 544/COCH/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin18 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

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

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 147Section 147oSection 148

gain of Rs.3,86,401/- without setting off the same against short term capital loss of Rs.16,64,800/- when the matter was already concluded in favour of the assesse in first appeal vide appellate order in appeal No. ITA 44/KTM/CIT(A)-IV/2011-12 dtd. 28/08/2013 and the then Assessing Officer had already given the appeal effect to the said order

M/S.POPULAR FINANCE,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1, THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 203/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

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

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)

reassessment proceedings u/s. 263 pending till the decision of the Apex Court in the cases of Shri Arun Thomas & Shri Thomas Thomas for the Assessment Year 2008-09 as per law. 4. Against this the assessees are in appeal before us with the following grounds of appeals: 1. The order of the learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kottayam

M/S POPULAR FINANCE COMPANY,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ACIT,CIR-1,, THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 202/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

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

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)

reassessment proceedings u/s. 263 pending till the decision of the Apex Court in the cases of Shri Arun Thomas & Shri Thomas Thomas for the Assessment Year 2008-09 as per law. 4. Against this the assessees are in appeal before us with the following grounds of appeals: 1. The order of the learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kottayam