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.

13 results for “capital gains”+ Rectification u/s 154clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai352 Delhi275 Bangalore138 Chennai120 Kolkata98 Agra69 Ahmedabad67 Jaipur56 Chandigarh53 Pune42 Hyderabad32 Visakhapatnam30 Indore28 Surat27 Lucknow23 Nagpur18 Cochin13 Rajkot7 Amritsar7 Allahabad5 Jodhpur5 Patna5 Cuttack4 Raipur3 Karnataka2 Panaji2 Varanasi1 Himachal Pradesh1 Kerala1 Jabalpur1 Telangana1

Key Topics

Section 115J24 Section 15420 Section 220(2)12 Section 244A12 Section 40A(3)12 Rectification u/s 15410 Section 409 Section 2506 Section 234D6 Capital Gains

THE COMMONWEALTH TRUST INDIA LTD,KOZHIKKODE vs. THE JTCIT, SPECIAL RANGE, KOZHIKKODE, KOZHIKKODE

In the result, the appeals as well as Stay Applications filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 10/COCH/2018[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Feb 2019AY 1996-97

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

For Appellant: Sri.R.JaikrishnaFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 40A(3)

capital gains. The Assessing Officer vide order dated 14.12.1999, passed a rectification order u/s 154 of the I.T.Act. The A.O. had taken

THE COMMONWEALTH TRUST INDIA LTD,KOZHIKKODE vs. THE JTCIT, SPECIAL RANGE, KOZHIKKODE, KOZHIKKODE

In the result, the appeals as well as Stay Applications filed by the assessee are dismissed

5

ITA 9/COCH/2018[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Feb 2019AY 1996-97

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

For Appellant: Sri.R.JaikrishnaFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 40A(3)

capital gains. The Assessing Officer vide order dated 14.12.1999, passed a rectification order u/s 154 of the I.T.Act. The A.O. had taken

KILKOTAGIRI AND THIRUMBADI PLANTATIONS LTD,CALICUT vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE-2(1) , KOZHIKODE

In the result, the grounds of appeal filed for the A

ITA 371/COCH/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri R V Veeramani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Snr.AR

Section 115JSection 40Section 43B

capital gains exigible to tax on the sale of old and unyielding rubber trees. If that be so, what is not taxable under the normal provisions should not be taxed invoking sec. 115JB. 4) The Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Raja BenoykumarSahas Roy (32 ITR 466), held that income from trees planted and nurtured will be agricultural income. Again

KILKOTAGIRI AND THIRUMBADI PLANTATIONS LTD,CALICUT vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE-2(1) , KOZHIKODE

In the result, the grounds of appeal filed for the A

ITA 370/COCH/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri R V Veeramani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Snr.AR

Section 115JSection 40Section 43B

capital gains exigible to tax on the sale of old and unyielding rubber trees. If that be so, what is not taxable under the normal provisions should not be taxed invoking sec. 115JB. 4) The Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Raja BenoykumarSahas Roy (32 ITR 466), held that income from trees planted and nurtured will be agricultural income. Again

KILKOTAGIRI AND THIRUMBADI PLANTATIONS LTD,CALICUT vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE-2(1) , KOZHIKODE

In the result, the grounds of appeal filed for the A

ITA 369/COCH/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Nov 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri R V Veeramani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Snr.AR

Section 115JSection 40Section 43B

capital gains exigible to tax on the sale of old and unyielding rubber trees. If that be so, what is not taxable under the normal provisions should not be taxed invoking sec. 115JB. 4) The Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Raja BenoykumarSahas Roy (32 ITR 466), held that income from trees planted and nurtured will be agricultural income. Again

CLINT MARTEL WILFRED,ERNAKULAM vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE, KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 206/COCH/2021[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Dec 2022AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Saroj Kumar Parida, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR

Section 143(2)Section 154Section 50C

rectification order u/s. 154 dated 17.11.2020 was passed for the reason that for the purpose of stamp duty in respect of the property sold by the assessee, the value considered was Rs.1,22,94,000 whereas the assessee has computed the capital gain

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. DCIT, THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

ITA 288/COCH/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Naresh S., CAFor Respondent: Dr. S. Pandian, CIT-DR

Section 153Section 154Section 220(2)Section 234DSection 244ASection 244aSection 250

154 of the Act as its purpose is to deal with the apparent mistake on record pertaining to previous year 2003-04 only. Be that as it may, we are of the view that rectification is not meant to deal with detailed fishing enquiries TS Balram, ITO vs. Volkart Bros. [1971] 82 ITR 50 (SC). We thus reject the assessee

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED ,THRISSUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1), THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

ITA 285/COCH/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Naresh S., CAFor Respondent: Dr. S. Pandian, CIT-DR

Section 153Section 154Section 220(2)Section 234DSection 244ASection 244aSection 250

154 of the Act as its purpose is to deal with the apparent mistake on record pertaining to previous year 2003-04 only. Be that as it may, we are of the view that rectification is not meant to deal with detailed fishing enquiries TS Balram, ITO vs. Volkart Bros. [1971] 82 ITR 50 (SC). We thus reject the assessee

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1)& TPS, THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

ITA 286/COCH/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Naresh S., CAFor Respondent: Dr. S. Pandian, CIT-DR

Section 153Section 154Section 220(2)Section 234DSection 244ASection 244aSection 250

154 of the Act as its purpose is to deal with the apparent mistake on record pertaining to previous year 2003-04 only. Be that as it may, we are of the view that rectification is not meant to deal with detailed fishing enquiries TS Balram, ITO vs. Volkart Bros. [1971] 82 ITR 50 (SC). We thus reject the assessee

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. JCIT, RANGE-1, THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

ITA 283/COCH/2024[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Naresh S., CAFor Respondent: Dr. S. Pandian, CIT-DR

Section 153Section 154Section 220(2)Section 234DSection 244ASection 244aSection 250

154 of the Act as its purpose is to deal with the apparent mistake on record pertaining to previous year 2003-04 only. Be that as it may, we are of the view that rectification is not meant to deal with detailed fishing enquiries TS Balram, ITO vs. Volkart Bros. [1971] 82 ITR 50 (SC). We thus reject the assessee

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

ITA 232/COCH/2024[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Naresh S., CAFor Respondent: Dr. S. Pandian, CIT-DR

Section 153Section 154Section 220(2)Section 234DSection 244ASection 244aSection 250

154 of the Act as its purpose is to deal with the apparent mistake on record pertaining to previous year 2003-04 only. Be that as it may, we are of the view that rectification is not meant to deal with detailed fishing enquiries TS Balram, ITO vs. Volkart Bros. [1971] 82 ITR 50 (SC). We thus reject the assessee

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. JCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

ITA 233/COCH/2024[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Naresh S., CAFor Respondent: Dr. S. Pandian, CIT-DR

Section 153Section 154Section 220(2)Section 234DSection 244ASection 244aSection 250

154 of the Act as its purpose is to deal with the apparent mistake on record pertaining to previous year 2003-04 only. Be that as it may, we are of the view that rectification is not meant to deal with detailed fishing enquiries TS Balram, ITO vs. Volkart Bros. [1971] 82 ITR 50 (SC). We thus reject the assessee

MR. RANJITH THAZHE KUNHAMBATH,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO, WARD 3(3), NON CORPORATE RANGE 2, KOCHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee and the stay petition is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1000/COCH/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri. Paulson, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

rectification order u/s.154 and accordingly the tax was reduced to Rs.292 and along with interest the final demand was computed at Rs.970. 3. Subsequently the AO initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) considering the original demand on ESOP income not declared in the return. Assessee has submitted reply to penalty notice explaining the circumstances