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.

18 results for “capital gains”+ Section 260clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai655Delhi409Karnataka346Bangalore240Chennai164Jaipur100Kolkata81Ahmedabad72Hyderabad64Calcutta52Telangana51Pune45Visakhapatnam43Chandigarh30Lucknow24Indore21Cuttack19Nagpur19Cochin18Rajkot17SC15Surat15Agra10Dehradun9Amritsar8Varanasi8Raipur8Jodhpur7Patna6Allahabad3Andhra Pradesh2Punjab & Haryana2Rajasthan2Jabalpur2Guwahati2ANIL R. DAVE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1Himachal Pradesh1Panaji1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Orissa1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)38Section 37(1)26Section 26319Section 4016Disallowance11Section 457Section 577Section 115B6Addition to Income6Section 40A(3)

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

4
Deduction3
Reassessment3

M/S POPULAR FINANCE COMPANY,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ACIT,CIR-1,, THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 202/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

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

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)

260 & 402/Coch/2015. On perusal of this decision, it is observed that Hon'ble ITAT followed its own decision in the case of Arun Thomas, I.T.A No. 248/Coch/2012, dated 22-03-2013. The relevant part of the decision is as under: "A bare reading of section 37(1) clearly shows that any expenditure which is not in the nature described

M/S.POPULAR FINANCE,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1, THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 203/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

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

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)

260 & 402/Coch/2015. On perusal of this decision, it is observed that Hon'ble ITAT followed its own decision in the case of Arun Thomas, I.T.A No. 248/Coch/2012, dated 22-03-2013. The relevant part of the decision is as under: "A bare reading of section 37(1) clearly shows that any expenditure which is not in the nature described

M/S POPULAR FINANCE COMPANY,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ACIT,CIR-1,, THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 204/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

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

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)

260 & 402/Coch/2015. On perusal of this decision, it is observed that Hon'ble ITAT followed its own decision in the case of Arun Thomas, I.T.A No. 248/Coch/2012, dated 22-03-2013. The relevant part of the decision is as under: "A bare reading of section 37(1) clearly shows that any expenditure which is not in the nature described

DCIT, THIRUVALLA vs. MAR GREGORIOUS MEMORIAL MUTHOOT MEDICAL CENTRE, KOZHENCHERRY

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical

ITA 72/COCH/2018[2007-08]Status: HeardITAT Cochin21 Feb 2019AY 2007-08

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

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 45Section 57

260 & 402/Coch/2015. On perusal of this decision, it is observed that Hon'ble ITAT followed its own decision in the case of Arun Thomas, I.T.A No. 248/Coch/2012, dated 22-03-2013. The relevant part of the decision is as under: I.T.A. Nos. 69-72/Coch/2018 & 73-75/Coch/2018 "A bare reading of section 37(1) clearly shows that any expenditure

THE ACIT, THIRUVALLA vs. M/S.MUTHOOT PROPERTIES & INVESTMENTS, KOZHENCHERRY

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical

ITA 75/COCH/2018[2005-06]Status: HeardITAT Cochin21 Feb 2019AY 2005-06

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

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 45Section 57

260 & 402/Coch/2015. On perusal of this decision, it is observed that Hon'ble ITAT followed its own decision in the case of Arun Thomas, I.T.A No. 248/Coch/2012, dated 22-03-2013. The relevant part of the decision is as under: I.T.A. Nos. 69-72/Coch/2018 & 73-75/Coch/2018 "A bare reading of section 37(1) clearly shows that any expenditure

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1, THIRUVALLA, THIRUVALLA vs. MAR GREGORIOUS MEMORIAL MUTHOOT MEDICAL CENTRE, PATHANAMTHITTA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical

ITA 69/COCH/2018[2002-03]Status: HeardITAT Cochin21 Feb 2019AY 2002-03

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

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 45Section 57

260 & 402/Coch/2015. On perusal of this decision, it is observed that Hon'ble ITAT followed its own decision in the case of Arun Thomas, I.T.A No. 248/Coch/2012, dated 22-03-2013. The relevant part of the decision is as under: I.T.A. Nos. 69-72/Coch/2018 & 73-75/Coch/2018 "A bare reading of section 37(1) clearly shows that any expenditure

DCIT, THIRUVALLA vs. MAR GREGORIOUS MEMORIAL MUTHOOT MEDICAL CENTRE, KOZHENCHERRY

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical

ITA 70/COCH/2018[2003-04]Status: HeardITAT Cochin21 Feb 2019AY 2003-04

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

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 45Section 57

260 & 402/Coch/2015. On perusal of this decision, it is observed that Hon'ble ITAT followed its own decision in the case of Arun Thomas, I.T.A No. 248/Coch/2012, dated 22-03-2013. The relevant part of the decision is as under: I.T.A. Nos. 69-72/Coch/2018 & 73-75/Coch/2018 "A bare reading of section 37(1) clearly shows that any expenditure

DCIT, THIRUVALLA vs. MAR GREGORIOUS MEMORIAL MUTHOOT MEDICAL CENTRE, KOZHENCHERRY

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical

ITA 71/COCH/2018[2004-05]Status: HeardITAT Cochin21 Feb 2019AY 2004-05

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

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 45Section 57

260 & 402/Coch/2015. On perusal of this decision, it is observed that Hon'ble ITAT followed its own decision in the case of Arun Thomas, I.T.A No. 248/Coch/2012, dated 22-03-2013. The relevant part of the decision is as under: I.T.A. Nos. 69-72/Coch/2018 & 73-75/Coch/2018 "A bare reading of section 37(1) clearly shows that any expenditure

THE ACIT, THIRUVALLA vs. M/S.MUTHOOT PROPERTIES & INVESTMENTS, KOZHENCHERRY

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical

ITA 73/COCH/2018[2002-03]Status: HeardITAT Cochin21 Feb 2019AY 2002-03

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

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 45Section 57

260 & 402/Coch/2015. On perusal of this decision, it is observed that Hon'ble ITAT followed its own decision in the case of Arun Thomas, I.T.A No. 248/Coch/2012, dated 22-03-2013. The relevant part of the decision is as under: I.T.A. Nos. 69-72/Coch/2018 & 73-75/Coch/2018 "A bare reading of section 37(1) clearly shows that any expenditure

DCIT, THIRUVALLA vs. MUTHOOT PROPERTIES & INVESTMENTS,, KOZHENCHERRY

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical

ITA 74/COCH/2018[2003-04]Status: HeardITAT Cochin21 Feb 2019AY 2003-04

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

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 45Section 57

260 & 402/Coch/2015. On perusal of this decision, it is observed that Hon'ble ITAT followed its own decision in the case of Arun Thomas, I.T.A No. 248/Coch/2012, dated 22-03-2013. The relevant part of the decision is as under: I.T.A. Nos. 69-72/Coch/2018 & 73-75/Coch/2018 "A bare reading of section 37(1) clearly shows that any expenditure

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

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

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 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

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