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.

14 results for “capital gains”+ Section 144Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai295Delhi126Ahmedabad91Hyderabad68Pune64Jaipur64Bangalore60Chennai58Chandigarh43Kolkata35Surat30Visakhapatnam27Raipur26Rajkot21Agra18Indore18Cochin14Lucknow12Nagpur8Jabalpur8Patna6Dehradun6Panaji4Ranchi3Jodhpur2Cuttack1Guwahati1Amritsar1Allahabad1

Key Topics

Section 4016Section 143(3)12Section 14811Addition to Income10Section 139(1)9Section 1477Disallowance6Capital Gains6Section 545Section 40A(3)

INKEL LTD,KAKKANAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1, TRIVANDRUM

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

ITA 527/COCH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 28Section 48

Section 144B of the Act on 14.06.2021, determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.17,54,80,455. In the profit and loss account, the assessee had shown Rs.7,78,94,200 as income from disposal of land and buildings on long-term finance lease, and also claimed an expenditure of Rs.3,64,31,906 towards cost of acquisition

ELAVANCHALIL ABDUL BASHEER,KOZHIKODE vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), KOZHIKODE

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

4
Section 2634
Short Term Capital Gains4
ITA 310/COCH/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessment Year: 2020-21 Elavanchalil Abdul Basheer .......... Appellant Oittannmakm, Koduvally, Kozhikode 673572 [Pan: Bbwpb4939D] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Kozhikode .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri C.B.M. Warrier, Ca Respondent By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.05.2024 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 23.02.2024 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual Deriving Income Under The Head ‘Agriculture’. The Return Of Income For Ay 2020-21 Was Filed On 21.12.2020 Declaring Income Of Rs. 4,60,00,000/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Kozhokode

For Appellant: Shri C.B.M. Warrier, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(14)(iii)

144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at a total income of Rs. 4,55,83,080/-. While doing so, the AO made addition of Rs. 4,55,83,080/- by disallowing the claim for exemption of capital gains on sale of agricultural land in survey No. 143/34, Kattippara Village, Thamarassery, Kozhikode. 3. The factual background leading

GEORGE SUMESH,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO,WARD-1 & TPS, ALUVA

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

ITA 395/COCH/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Mar 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Sri.AivanRaj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144B(6)Section 144B(6)(viii)Section 250Section 69A

section 144B of the Act, which specifically mandates granting the opportunity for a personal hearing where such a request is made by the assessee. 3. Having considered the submissions and perusal of the material available on record, we find that in response to the show-cause notice dated 14.12.2022 and 15.12.2022, the assessee requested for personal hearing through VC during

GIJU PURAPADATHIL MATHAI,ERNAKULAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CORP WARD 2(1), KOCHI

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

ITA 214/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2016-17 Giju Purapadathil Mathai .......... Appellant 5-B Parambil Thara Corss Road, Ivory Heights Panampilly Nagar, Ernakulam 682036 [Pan: Ahopm6606R] Vs. Acit, Corporate Ward- 2(1), Kochi .......... Respondent Assessee By: Smt. Parvathy Ammal, Ca Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 09.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.08.2025

For Appellant: Smt. Parvathy Ammal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for AY 2016-17. However, based on the information available with the department that the appellant sold immovable property for a consideration of Rs. 2 Giju Purapadathil Mathai 86,20,665/-, the National Assessment Unit (hereinafter called "the AO")formed an opinion that income escaped assessment to tax. Accordingly

JOJO,THRISSUR vs. ITO WARD-1(1), THRISSUR, THRISSUR

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

ITA 769/COCH/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2020-21 Jojo .......... Appellant Kattalapeedika House, Mattathur, Thrissur [Pan: Bycpj5296A] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Thrissur .......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Vibin K.K., Ca Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 26.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.11.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 29.08.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Appellant Is An Individual. No Regular Return Of Income Under The Provisions Of Section 139(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) For Ay 2020-21 Was Filed By The Appellant. Based On The Information That The Appellant Had Sold Immovable Property For A Consideration Of Rs. 20,00,000/- The Assessment Unit Of Income Tax Department (Hereinafter Called "The Ao") Formed An Opinion That Income Escaped Assessment To Tax. Accordingly, A Notice U/S. 148 Of The Act Was Issued On 28.03.2024

For Appellant: Shri Vibin K.K., CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 54

section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for AY 2020-21 was filed by the appellant. Based on the information that the appellant had sold immovable property for a consideration of Rs. 20,00,000/- the Assessment Unit of Income Tax Department (hereinafter called "the AO") formed an opinion that income escaped assessment to tax. Accordingly

VISWANATHAN KRISHNAKUMAR,ALUVA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ALUVA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 606/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. Being aggrieved, the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal.

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar P J, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal. Snr AR
Section 147Section 148Section 24Section 250Section 54FSection 80C

section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, date of order 27/03/2022. 2 ITA 606/Coch/2025 VishwanathanKrishnakumar 2. The brief facts of the case are that the Ld.AO had information that the assessee had purchased immovable property of Rs.16,88,000/- and received commission of Rs.91,02,400/- during the A.Y. 2015-16. However, the assessee had not filed any return

ELIZABETH JOSE,ERNAKULAM vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), ERNAKULAM

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

ITA 522/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2016-17 Elizbeth Jose .......... Appellant Choice House, P.V. Sreedharan Road Kumbalam, Ernakulam 682506 [Pan: Acfpj2569J] Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle - 1(1), Kochi .......... Respondent Assessee By: ------- None ------- Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.08.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 12.06.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual. The Return Of Income For Ay 2016-17 Was Filed On 03.08 Disclosing Total Income Of Rs. 14,71,400/- & Unabsorbed Short Term Capital Loss Of Rs. 35,89,251/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The National Faceless Assessment Centre (Hereinafter Called "The Ao") Vide Order Dated 18.12.2018 Passed U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Accepting

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)

144B of the Act after making addition of Rs. 48,05,504/- under the head ‘income from capital gain’. 3. The factual background leading to the above addition is that during the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration the appellant sold an apartment to M/s. Bros India Group for an apparent consideration

NARAYANAN MUKUNDAN,VALIYAKUNNU vs. ITO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

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

ITA 912/COCH/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Mar 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2016-17 Narayanan Mukundan .......... Appellant Mukunda Niwas, Attingal P.O. Thiruvananthapuram 695101 [Pan: Bdmpm7286A] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward - 1(3), Thiruvananthapuram

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 10Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148

section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was filed for AY 2016-17. However, based on the information available on AIMS/Insights portal that the appellant had received maturity proceeds of Life Insurance policy in India, a notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued on 30.03.2021. In 2 Narayanan Mukundan response to the notice, the appellant

PUTHUR KULANGARA JACOB PAULY,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), THRISSUR

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

ITA 754/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2016-17 Puthur Kulangara Jacob Pauly .......... Appellant Puthur Kulangara House, Alagappanagar P.O. Mukundapuram, Thrissur 680301 [Pan: Arapp8842J] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Thrissur .......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Lokanathan, Ca Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.11.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 04.06.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual. No Regular Return Of Income Under The Provisions Of Section 139(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Was Filed By The Appellant For Ay 2016-17. As Per The Information Flagged In Accordance With The Risk Management Strategy Formulate By The Cbdt & Evidence In Possession, The Appellant Had Sold Immovable Property In Ay 2015- 16 For A Consideration Of Rs. 1,14,80,000/-. Accordingly, The 2 Puthur Kulangara Jacob Pauly Assessment Unit Of Income Tax Department (Hereinafter Called "The Ao") Issues A Notice U/S. 148 Of The Act On 06.03.2023. In Response To The Notice U/S. 148, The Appellant Filed Return Of Income On 05.04.2023 Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 12,500/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Ao Vide Order Dated 28.02.2024 Passed U/S. 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act At A Total Income Of Rs. 45,73,680/-. While Doing So, The Ao Made Addition Of Rs. 45,61,180/- On Account Of Short Term Capital Gain.

For Appellant: Shri Lokanathan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was filed by the appellant for AY 2016-17. As per the information flagged in accordance with the risk management strategy formulate by the CBDT and evidence in possession, the appellant had sold immovable property in AY 2015- 16 for a consideration of Rs. 1,14,80,000/-. Accordingly

KUNJUMOL,TRIVANDRUM vs. ITO, TRIVANDRUM

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

ITA 266/COCH/2024[AY 2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Nov 2024

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139Section 144BSection 148BSection 194I

Section 194IA The assessee had not responded to the notice u/s. 148B of the Act, therefore, based on the information available on record, the AO completed the assessment u/s. 144B of the Act at a total income of Rs. 73,15,000/- While doing so the AO made addition on account of time deposit

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-1(1), THRISSUR vs. THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED, THRISSUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee as well as Revenue stand partly allowed

ITA 51/COCH/2024[2021]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Accontant Member & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 40Section 40A(3)

144B of the Act vide order dated 5th September, 2022 at a total income of Rs.454,75,49,402. While doing so, the AO made following disallowances. (i) Disallowance of provision for bad and doubtful debts. Rs.227,48,76,260 (ii) Disallowance of guarantee commission paid to Government of Kerala u/s.40

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THRISSUR vs. THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED, THRISSUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee as well as Revenue stand partly allowed

ITA 50/COCH/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Accontant Member & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 40Section 40A(3)

144B of the Act vide order dated 5th September, 2022 at a total income of Rs.454,75,49,402. While doing so, the AO made following disallowances. (i) Disallowance of provision for bad and doubtful debts. Rs.227,48,76,260 (ii) Disallowance of guarantee commission paid to Government of Kerala u/s.40

THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISE LTD,CHEMBUKKAVU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1) &TPS, THRISSUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee as well as Revenue stand partly allowed

ITA 81/COCH/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Accontant Member & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 40Section 40A(3)

144B of the Act vide order dated 5th September, 2022 at a total income of Rs.454,75,49,402. While doing so, the AO made following disallowances. (i) Disallowance of provision for bad and doubtful debts. Rs.227,48,76,260 (ii) Disallowance of guarantee commission paid to Government of Kerala u/s.40

THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1) TPS, THRISSUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee as well as Revenue stand partly allowed

ITA 869/COCH/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Accontant Member & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 40Section 40A(3)

144B of the Act vide order dated 5th September, 2022 at a total income of Rs.454,75,49,402. While doing so, the AO made following disallowances. (i) Disallowance of provision for bad and doubtful debts. Rs.227,48,76,260 (ii) Disallowance of guarantee commission paid to Government of Kerala u/s.40