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.

73 results for “capital gains”+ Section 150clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai797Delhi613Bangalore311Ahmedabad210Jaipur199Chennai173Kolkata147Karnataka130Hyderabad117Indore79Cochin73Chandigarh73Pune66Calcutta50Cuttack48Raipur38Nagpur33Surat32Lucknow24Guwahati20Rajkot17Amritsar16Visakhapatnam14SC11Telangana8Allahabad5Dehradun4Patna4Jodhpur3Rajasthan3Panaji2Ranchi2Punjab & Haryana1Andhra Pradesh1Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 250115Section 143(3)9Capital Gains8Addition to Income7Section 40A(2)(b)6Section 406Business Income6Reassessment6Disallowance6

THE ACIT, TRICHUR vs. SRI.ARUN MAJEED, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 495/COCH/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

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

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

150) "Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Hon 'ble Supreme Court in G. Venkataswami Naidu and Co. V. CIT [1959] 35 ITR 594 (SC)". (Page No. 151) “The Supreme Court distinguished an investment from an adventure in the nature of trade as under:- (page 609 of 35 ITR).” (Page No. 154) "Cases of realization of investments consisting

THE ACIT, TRICHUR vs. SRI.ARUN MAJEED, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 496/COCH/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed

Showing 1–20 of 73 · Page 1 of 4

Section 50B5
Section 1324
Section 153A4
ITAT Cochin
06 Feb 2019
AY 2013-14

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

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

150) "Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Hon 'ble Supreme Court in G. Venkataswami Naidu and Co. V. CIT [1959] 35 ITR 594 (SC)". (Page No. 151) “The Supreme Court distinguished an investment from an adventure in the nature of trade as under:- (page 609 of 35 ITR).” (Page No. 154) "Cases of realization of investments consisting

THE ACIT, TRICHUR vs. SRI.ARUN MAJEED, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 494/COCH/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

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

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

150) "Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Hon 'ble Supreme Court in G. Venkataswami Naidu and Co. V. CIT [1959] 35 ITR 594 (SC)". (Page No. 151) “The Supreme Court distinguished an investment from an adventure in the nature of trade as under:- (page 609 of 35 ITR).” (Page No. 154) "Cases of realization of investments consisting

THE ACIT, TRICHUR vs. SRI.ARUN MAJEED, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 497/COCH/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Feb 2019AY 2014-15

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

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

150) "Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Hon 'ble Supreme Court in G. Venkataswami Naidu and Co. V. CIT [1959] 35 ITR 594 (SC)". (Page No. 151) “The Supreme Court distinguished an investment from an adventure in the nature of trade as under:- (page 609 of 35 ITR).” (Page No. 154) "Cases of realization of investments consisting

M/S.AMALGAM FOODS LTD,KOCHI vs. THE DCIT, CIR-1, ALLEPPEY, ALLEPPEY

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

ITA 110/COCH/2018[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Apr 2019AY 2003-04

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

Section 2Section 43BSection 50(2)Section 50B

section, the transfer will be regarded as a slump sale and gain can be treated as long term capital gain. 5. On appeal, the CIT(A) observed that judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Equinox Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (150

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTTAYAM vs. THOMAS CHANDY, KANJIRAPALLY

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

ITA 243/COCH/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2012-13 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax .......... Appellant Public Library Buiulding, Shastri Road Kottayam 686001 [Pan: Adzpc3009P] Vs. Thomas Chandy .......... Respondent Karimpanal Post, Post Box No. Vizhikithode, Kanjirpally 686507 Appellant By: Smt. Veni Raj, Cit-Dr Respondent By: Shri R. Krishnan, Ca Date Of Hearing: 12.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2025

For Appellant: Smt. Veni Raj, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri R. Krishnan, CA
Section 148Section 2(47)

150 cents in Kakkanad, Ernakulam. The appellant executed a registered power of attorney vide document No. 375/2011 on 23.11.2011 for development of that land in favour of M/s Skyline Foundations & Structures Pvt. Ltd. In addition to the execution of power of attorney, the appellant also entered into an agreement with builder. The AO, after making reference to some clauses

SRI.MONSON JOB,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ITO,WD-2, THIRUVALLA

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

ITA 510/COCH/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Nov 2019AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Sri.M.S.VenkitachalamFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)

150 mtrs. from M.C.Road. 5. The Appellant, therefore, prays that, based on the arguments presented above and other points / evidences that may be produced at the time of hearing, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) be kind enough to quash the order issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 2, Thiruvalla under section 143(3) of the Income

BENEESH KUMAR,KOCHI vs. ITO, NON CORP WARD 1(1), KOCHI

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

ITA 1161/COCH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 Beneesh Kumar .......... Appellant Madathuparambu House, Thattzham Road Vaduthala, Kochi 682023 [Pan: Agipb7548Q] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Non-Corporate Ward, Kochi Appellant By: Shri Ramesh Cherian, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Omanakutan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 19.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.04.2025

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh Cherian, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Omanakutan, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 282(1)Section 54Section 54F

150/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), NC, Kochi (hereinafter called "the AO") vide order dated 25.02.2016 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). While doing so, the AO disallowed the claim for deduction u/s. 54 of the Act. 3. The factual background

THE ACIT, CORP CIRCLE-1(2), KOCHI vs. M/S.KNOWELL REALTORS INDIA P. LTD, KOCHI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals are allowed

ITA 192/COCH/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Santosh P. Abraham, AdvFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamuna Devi, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 268A

capital gain of Rs.98.01 lakhs (AY 2012- 2013), was for the reason that the building had become old. Similarly, the land sold in AY 2015-2016, the second year under appeal, was for the reason that the assessee had not got a license fromGCDA to construct a commercial building thereon, placing on record a confirmation from the assessee to that

THE ACIT, CORP CIRCLE-1(2), KOCHI vs. M/S.KNOWELL REALTORS INDIA P. LTD, KOCHI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals are allowed

ITA 193/COCH/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Santosh P. Abraham, AdvFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamuna Devi, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 268A

capital gain of Rs.98.01 lakhs (AY 2012- 2013), was for the reason that the building had become old. Similarly, the land sold in AY 2015-2016, the second year under appeal, was for the reason that the assessee had not got a license fromGCDA to construct a commercial building thereon, placing on record a confirmation from the assessee to that

ABC BUILDWARES(P) LIMITED,KANNUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1`, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 455/COCH/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

150 of the factual paper book. It was clarified that although the name of Shri Muhammed Madni appeared as a shareholder, the actual investment was made on behalf of Shri Muhammed Abdul Gafoor and Shri Shameem, who are non-resident individuals and the brother and associate of Shri Muhammed Madni, respectively. The AR further emphasized that the actual ownership

KAKKOTTAKATH NADUVILAPURAYIL JUNAID,KANNUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 497/COCH/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

150 of the factual paper book. It was clarified that although the name of Shri Muhammed Madni appeared as a shareholder, the actual investment was made on behalf of Shri Muhammed Abdul Gafoor and Shri Shameem, who are non-resident individuals and the brother and associate of Shri Muhammed Madni, respectively. The AR further emphasized that the actual ownership

KAKKOTTAKATH NADUVILAPURAYIL JUNAID,KANNUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 498/COCH/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

150 of the factual paper book. It was clarified that although the name of Shri Muhammed Madni appeared as a shareholder, the actual investment was made on behalf of Shri Muhammed Abdul Gafoor and Shri Shameem, who are non-resident individuals and the brother and associate of Shri Muhammed Madni, respectively. The AR further emphasized that the actual ownership

KAKKOTTAKATH NADUVILAPURAYIL JUNAID,KANNUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 500/COCH/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

150 of the factual paper book. It was clarified that although the name of Shri Muhammed Madni appeared as a shareholder, the actual investment was made on behalf of Shri Muhammed Abdul Gafoor and Shri Shameem, who are non-resident individuals and the brother and associate of Shri Muhammed Madni, respectively. The AR further emphasized that the actual ownership

K.ABDUL VAHEED,TALIPARAMBA vs. ACIT(CENTRAL CIRCLE-1), KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 501/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

150 of the factual paper book. It was clarified that although the name of Shri Muhammed Madni appeared as a shareholder, the actual investment was made on behalf of Shri Muhammed Abdul Gafoor and Shri Shameem, who are non-resident individuals and the brother and associate of Shri Muhammed Madni, respectively. The AR further emphasized that the actual ownership

ABC BUILDWARES INDIA(P) LIMITED,KANNUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 454/COCH/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

150 of the factual paper book. It was clarified that although the name of Shri Muhammed Madni appeared as a shareholder, the actual investment was made on behalf of Shri Muhammed Abdul Gafoor and Shri Shameem, who are non-resident individuals and the brother and associate of Shri Muhammed Madni, respectively. The AR further emphasized that the actual ownership

RUCHIT PARIMAL ASHAR,SANALA ROAD, MORBI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 505/COCH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

150 of the factual paper book. It was clarified that although the name of Shri Muhammed Madni appeared as a shareholder, the actual investment was made on behalf of Shri Muhammed Abdul Gafoor and Shri Shameem, who are non-resident individuals and the brother and associate of Shri Muhammed Madni, respectively. The AR further emphasized that the actual ownership

KAKKOTTAKATH NADUVILAPURAYIL JUNAID,KANNUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 499/COCH/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

150 of the factual paper book. It was clarified that although the name of Shri Muhammed Madni appeared as a shareholder, the actual investment was made on behalf of Shri Muhammed Abdul Gafoor and Shri Shameem, who are non-resident individuals and the brother and associate of Shri Muhammed Madni, respectively. The AR further emphasized that the actual ownership

KODIYIL MUHAMMED MADANI PARTNER, ABC SALES CORPORATION,TALIPARAMBA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 836/COCH/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

150 of the factual paper book. It was clarified that although the name of Shri Muhammed Madni appeared as a shareholder, the actual investment was made on behalf of Shri Muhammed Abdul Gafoor and Shri Shameem, who are non-resident individuals and the brother and associate of Shri Muhammed Madni, respectively. The AR further emphasized that the actual ownership

K.ABDUL VAHEED,TALIPARAMBA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 502/COCH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

150 of the factual paper book. It was clarified that although the name of Shri Muhammed Madni appeared as a shareholder, the actual investment was made on behalf of Shri Muhammed Abdul Gafoor and Shri Shameem, who are non-resident individuals and the brother and associate of Shri Muhammed Madni, respectively. The AR further emphasized that the actual ownership