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.

125 results for “capital gains”+ Section 131clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,271Delhi953Jaipur333Bangalore312Chennai277Ahmedabad254Kolkata242Karnataka174Pune138Cochin125Hyderabad114Chandigarh110Indore109Surat80Nagpur70Raipur62Calcutta53Guwahati50Visakhapatnam42Rajkot39Cuttack30Lucknow29Amritsar23Jodhpur11Ranchi11Dehradun9SC8Telangana8Jabalpur5Varanasi5Panaji3Rajasthan3Allahabad2Agra1Gauhati1Andhra Pradesh1Patna1

Key Topics

Section 25094Addition to Income33Section 80G16Section 143(3)13Section 14A12Section 3611Section 80G(5)10Exemption10Section 153A8Section 2(24)(vi)

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

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 Cochin

Showing 1–20 of 125 · Page 1 of 7

8
Capital Gains8
Limitation/Time-bar6
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

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

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

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 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

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

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

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

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

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA no

ITA 54/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

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

section 13 of the I.T. Act by the Trust and the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) were misdirected in considering it’s activity of running an Engineering College as running of a business. 4. Trust claimed utilization and set off of carry forward deficit for earlier years but the CIT(A) erred in not considering such claim, just

CARMEL EDUCATIONAL TRUST,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. DCIT,CEN- CIRCLE,, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA no

ITA 305/COCH/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2005-06

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

section 13 of the I.T. Act by the Trust and the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) were misdirected in considering it’s activity of running an Engineering College as running of a business. 4. Trust claimed utilization and set off of carry forward deficit for earlier years but the CIT(A) erred in not considering such claim, just

CARMEL EDUCATIONAL TRUST,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. DCIT,CEN- CIRCLE,, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA no

ITA 310/COCH/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

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

section 13 of the I.T. Act by the Trust and the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) were misdirected in considering it’s activity of running an Engineering College as running of a business. 4. Trust claimed utilization and set off of carry forward deficit for earlier years but the CIT(A) erred in not considering such claim, just

SRI.JOSE THOMAS,ADOOR vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

ITA 30/COCH/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2007-08

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

section 13 of the I.T. Act by the Trust and the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) were misdirected in considering it’s activity of running an Engineering College as running of a business. 4. Trust claimed utilization and set off of carry forward deficit for earlier years but the CIT(A) erred in not considering such claim, just

SRI.JOSE THOMAS,ADOOR vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

ITA 31/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

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

section 13 of the I.T. Act by the Trust and the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) were misdirected in considering it’s activity of running an Engineering College as running of a business. 4. Trust claimed utilization and set off of carry forward deficit for earlier years but the CIT(A) erred in not considering such claim, just

CARMEL EDUCATIONAL TRUST,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. DCIT,CEN- CIRCLE,, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA no

ITA 308/COCH/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

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

section 13 of the I.T. Act by the Trust and the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) were misdirected in considering it’s activity of running an Engineering College as running of a business. 4. Trust claimed utilization and set off of carry forward deficit for earlier years but the CIT(A) erred in not considering such claim, just

THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM vs. SRI.JOSE THOMAS, ADOOR

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA no

ITA 55/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

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

section 13 of the I.T. Act by the Trust and the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) were misdirected in considering it’s activity of running an Engineering College as running of a business. 4. Trust claimed utilization and set off of carry forward deficit for earlier years but the CIT(A) erred in not considering such claim, just

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

ITA 33/COCH/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2005-06

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

section 13 of the I.T. Act by the Trust and the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) were misdirected in considering it’s activity of running an Engineering College as running of a business. 4. Trust claimed utilization and set off of carry forward deficit for earlier years but the CIT(A) erred in not considering such claim, just

CARMEL EDUCATIONAL TRUST,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. DCIT,CEN- CIRCLE,, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA no

ITA 306/COCH/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2006-07

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

section 13 of the I.T. Act by the Trust and the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) were misdirected in considering it’s activity of running an Engineering College as running of a business. 4. Trust claimed utilization and set off of carry forward deficit for earlier years but the CIT(A) erred in not considering such claim, just

CARMEL EDUCATIONAL TRUST,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. DCIT,CEN- CIRCLE,, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA no

ITA 309/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

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

section 13 of the I.T. Act by the Trust and the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) were misdirected in considering it’s activity of running an Engineering College as running of a business. 4. Trust claimed utilization and set off of carry forward deficit for earlier years but the CIT(A) erred in not considering such claim, just

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

ITA 34/COCH/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2006-07

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

section 13 of the I.T. Act by the Trust and the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) were misdirected in considering it’s activity of running an Engineering College as running of a business. 4. Trust claimed utilization and set off of carry forward deficit for earlier years but the CIT(A) erred in not considering such claim, just

THE ACIT CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM vs. SMT.GRACY BABU, ADOOR P.O.

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA no

ITA 239/COCH/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

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

section 13 of the I.T. Act by the Trust and the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) were misdirected in considering it’s activity of running an Engineering College as running of a business. 4. Trust claimed utilization and set off of carry forward deficit for earlier years but the CIT(A) erred in not considering such claim, just