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.

150 results for “capital gains”+ Section 2(47)(v)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,257Delhi1,756Bangalore952Chennai673Ahmedabad496Jaipur402Kolkata393Hyderabad313Chandigarh229Pune172Indore167Karnataka162Cochin150Raipur107Visakhapatnam98Agra79Rajkot71Surat68Nagpur68Calcutta57Cuttack50Guwahati42Lucknow40Amritsar34SC33Telangana30Patna18Ranchi11Jodhpur11Allahabad8Kerala6Dehradun6Rajasthan5Panaji5Varanasi3Jabalpur2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Orissa1ANIL R. DAVE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1Punjab & Haryana1Andhra Pradesh1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1

Key Topics

Section 25091Addition to Income36Section 143(3)18Capital Gains14Section 153A13Section 26310Section 489Section 2(24)(vi)8Section 1327

K P MUHAMMED ALI,CALICUT vs. ITO ( INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), KOZHIKODE

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

ITA 1008/COCH/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Manomohan Dask.P. Muhammed Ali Income Tax Officer K.P. House: 19/1866 (International Taxation) Chalappuram Vs. Kozhikode Calicut 673002 [Pan:Agnpm9397F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Raghunathan Palakkal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 2(47)(vi)Section 53A

capital gains would be taxable in the year in which such transactions are entered into, even if the transfer of the immovable property is not effective or complete under the general law. Under section 2(47)(v

Showing 1–20 of 150 · Page 1 of 8

...
Section 2(47)7
Exemption5
Disallowance4

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

ITA 35/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

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

47) of the Act. Hence, it was submitted that consideration if any, received or receivable in lieu of relinquishment of a capital asset or extinguishment of any right therein would constitute capital receipt only and not revenue receipt. It was submitted that the profits and gains arising from the transfer was, therefore, required to be computed under the head capital

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

ITA 210/COCH/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

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

47) of the Act. Hence, it was submitted that consideration if any, received or receivable in lieu of relinquishment of a capital asset or extinguishment of any right therein would constitute capital receipt only and not revenue receipt. It was submitted that the profits and gains arising from the transfer was, therefore, required to be computed under the head capital

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

47) of the Act. Hence, it was submitted that consideration if any, received or receivable in lieu of relinquishment of a capital asset or extinguishment of any right therein would constitute capital receipt only and not revenue receipt. It was submitted that the profits and gains arising from the transfer was, therefore, required to be computed under the head capital

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

47) of the Act. Hence, it was submitted that consideration if any, received or receivable in lieu of relinquishment of a capital asset or extinguishment of any right therein would constitute capital receipt only and not revenue receipt. It was submitted that the profits and gains arising from the transfer was, therefore, required to be computed under the head capital

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

47) of the Act. Hence, it was submitted that consideration if any, received or receivable in lieu of relinquishment of a capital asset or extinguishment of any right therein would constitute capital receipt only and not revenue receipt. It was submitted that the profits and gains arising from the transfer was, therefore, required to be computed under the head capital

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

47) of the Act. Hence, it was submitted that consideration if any, received or receivable in lieu of relinquishment of a capital asset or extinguishment of any right therein would constitute capital receipt only and not revenue receipt. It was submitted that the profits and gains arising from the transfer was, therefore, required to be computed under the head capital

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

47) of the Act. Hence, it was submitted that consideration if any, received or receivable in lieu of relinquishment of a capital asset or extinguishment of any right therein would constitute capital receipt only and not revenue receipt. It was submitted that the profits and gains arising from the transfer was, therefore, required to be computed under the head capital

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

47) of the Act. Hence, it was submitted that consideration if any, received or receivable in lieu of relinquishment of a capital asset or extinguishment of any right therein would constitute capital receipt only and not revenue receipt. It was submitted that the profits and gains arising from the transfer was, therefore, required to be computed under the head capital

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

47) of the Act. Hence, it was submitted that consideration if any, received or receivable in lieu of relinquishment of a capital asset or extinguishment of any right therein would constitute capital receipt only and not revenue receipt. It was submitted that the profits and gains arising from the transfer was, therefore, required to be computed under the head capital

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

ITA 28/COCH/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2005-06

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

47) of the Act. Hence, it was submitted that consideration if any, received or receivable in lieu of relinquishment of a capital asset or extinguishment of any right therein would constitute capital receipt only and not revenue receipt. It was submitted that the profits and gains arising from the transfer was, therefore, required to be computed under the head capital

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

47) of the Act. Hence, it was submitted that consideration if any, received or receivable in lieu of relinquishment of a capital asset or extinguishment of any right therein would constitute capital receipt only and not revenue receipt. It was submitted that the profits and gains arising from the transfer was, therefore, required to be computed under the head capital

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

47) of the Act. Hence, it was submitted that consideration if any, received or receivable in lieu of relinquishment of a capital asset or extinguishment of any right therein would constitute capital receipt only and not revenue receipt. It was submitted that the profits and gains arising from the transfer was, therefore, required to be computed under the head capital

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

47) of the Act. Hence, it was submitted that consideration if any, received or receivable in lieu of relinquishment of a capital asset or extinguishment of any right therein would constitute capital receipt only and not revenue receipt. It was submitted that the profits and gains arising from the transfer was, therefore, required to be computed under the head capital

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

47) of the Act. Hence, it was submitted that consideration if any, received or receivable in lieu of relinquishment of a capital asset or extinguishment of any right therein would constitute capital receipt only and not revenue receipt. It was submitted that the profits and gains arising from the transfer was, therefore, required to be computed under the head capital

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

ITA 29/COCH/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2006-07

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

47) of the Act. Hence, it was submitted that consideration if any, received or receivable in lieu of relinquishment of a capital asset or extinguishment of any right therein would constitute capital receipt only and not revenue receipt. It was submitted that the profits and gains arising from the transfer was, therefore, required to be computed under the head capital

SRI.JOSE THOMAS,ADOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ACIT,CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

ITA 213/COCH/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

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

47) of the Act. Hence, it was submitted that consideration if any, received or receivable in lieu of relinquishment of a capital asset or extinguishment of any right therein would constitute capital receipt only and not revenue receipt. It was submitted that the profits and gains arising from the transfer was, therefore, required to be computed under the head capital

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

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

ITA 238/COCH/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

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

47) of the Act. Hence, it was submitted that consideration if any, received or receivable in lieu of relinquishment of a capital asset or extinguishment of any right therein would constitute capital receipt only and not revenue receipt. It was submitted that the profits and gains arising from the transfer was, therefore, required to be computed under the head capital

CARMEL EDUCATIONAL TRUST,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. DCIT, KOTTAYAM

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

ITA 304/COCH/2019[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2004-05

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

47) of the Act. Hence, it was submitted that consideration if any, received or receivable in lieu of relinquishment of a capital asset or extinguishment of any right therein would constitute capital receipt only and not revenue receipt. It was submitted that the profits and gains arising from the transfer was, therefore, required to be computed under the head capital

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

47) of the Act. Hence, it was submitted that consideration if any, received or receivable in lieu of relinquishment of a capital asset or extinguishment of any right therein would constitute capital receipt only and not revenue receipt. It was submitted that the profits and gains arising from the transfer was, therefore, required to be computed under the head capital