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.

8 results for “capital gains”+ Section 260clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai296Chennai116Delhi105Jaipur57Hyderabad37Bangalore36Ahmedabad27Nagpur18Kolkata18Pune17Chandigarh16Rajkot15Visakhapatnam12Indore11Surat8Dehradun8Lucknow8Cochin8Jodhpur7Patna6Varanasi5Agra5Amritsar5Raipur5Cuttack3Panaji1Jabalpur1Allahabad1

Key Topics

Section 4016Section 143(3)11Section 115B6Addition to Income6Section 40A(3)4Section 2634Disallowance4Section 53A3Section 2(47)3Section 2(47)(v)

THE ACIT, COCHIN vs. M/S.PVR TOURIST HOME, COCHIN

ITA 428/COCH/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Assessment Year: 2012-13 Acit, Circle-1, Non-Corporate .......... Appellant Iind Floor, C.R. Building, I.S. Press Road Ernakulam 682018 Vs. Pvr Tourist Home .......... Respondent Palarivattom, Kochi 682025 [Pan: Aadfp3442Q] Appellant By: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, Cit-Dr Respondent By: Shri Mohan Pulickal, Advocate Date Of Hearing: 10.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.03.2025

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Mohan Pulickal, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 45(4)Section 48Section 50Section 50(1)Section 50A

capital gains. The reference of the asset for valuation under section 55A was within the powers of the officer. Matter remanded to decide the valuation issue" 7. Being aggrieved by the order passed by this Tribunal the appellant firm preferred an appeal u/s. 260

2
Capital Gains2

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 in his returns of income which are verifiable. (emphasis, supplied) Revenue’s case: The same is with reference to the different clauses of the JDA and GPA, reproduced in their orders by the Revenue authorities, further relying on the decisions in Prameeela Krishna v. ITO [2014] 42 taxmann.com 185 (Kar); CIT v. Dr. T.K. Dayalu [2011] TIOL

PULIKKAPARAMBIL GEORGE JACOB,KOZHIKODE vs. ITO WARD 1(1), KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

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

ITA 558/COCH/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 Mar 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora (Accountant Member), Shri Sandeep Gosain (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri V.M. Veeramani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2Section 2(47)Section 2(47)(v)Section 2(47)(vi)Section 53A

section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) dated 27/12/2016 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12. 2. The appeal raises a single issue, i.e., the assessment of capital gain, if any, arising to the assessee for the current year. It would be relevant to recount the facts of the case in brief. Shri Jacob George

SULPHI SAINUDEEN SUNJU,ALAPPUZHA vs. THE ITO WARD 1 & TPS, ALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 701/COCH/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Jan 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishna, CAFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajasekhar, CIT(DR)
Section 115BSection 263Section 68

260/- minus Rs. 22,20,530/- as discussed above total income returned) is charged to tax as the income of the financial year 2016-17, relevant to the A.Y: 2017-18.” 4. The AO also made an addition of Rs.21,27,000 towards cash deposited by the assessee in the bank account during demonitisation period in Special Bank Notes

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)

260 (ii) Disallowance of guarantee commission paid to Government of Kerala u/s.40(a)(iib) of the Act Rs. 65,39,86,799 3 ITA No.81/Coch/2024 & Ors. The Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd. (iii) Disallowance u/s.40A(3) Rs. 1,60,63,721 4. Being aggrieved by the above disallowances, the appellant filed an appeal before the CIT(A), who vide

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)

260 (ii) Disallowance of guarantee commission paid to Government of Kerala u/s.40(a)(iib) of the Act Rs. 65,39,86,799 3 ITA No.81/Coch/2024 & Ors. The Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd. (iii) Disallowance u/s.40A(3) Rs. 1,60,63,721 4. Being aggrieved by the above disallowances, the appellant filed an appeal before the CIT(A), who vide

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)

260 (ii) Disallowance of guarantee commission paid to Government of Kerala u/s.40(a)(iib) of the Act Rs. 65,39,86,799 3 ITA No.81/Coch/2024 & Ors. The Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd. (iii) Disallowance u/s.40A(3) Rs. 1,60,63,721 4. Being aggrieved by the above disallowances, the appellant filed an appeal before the CIT(A), who vide

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)

260 (ii) Disallowance of guarantee commission paid to Government of Kerala u/s.40(a)(iib) of the Act Rs. 65,39,86,799 3 ITA No.81/Coch/2024 & Ors. The Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd. (iii) Disallowance u/s.40A(3) Rs. 1,60,63,721 4. Being aggrieved by the above disallowances, the appellant filed an appeal before the CIT(A), who vide