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.

11 results for “capital gains”+ Section 263(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,204Delhi952Bangalore564Kolkata384Chennai343Ahmedabad209Karnataka208Jaipur167Indore125Chandigarh122Hyderabad117Pune102Raipur98Surat68Calcutta67Rajkot63Nagpur49Panaji45Visakhapatnam41Lucknow35Cuttack27Guwahati21Jabalpur20Amritsar17Agra14Telangana12Cochin11Jodhpur10Dehradun10SC10Patna9Varanasi7Ranchi4Kerala3Rajasthan2Andhra Pradesh1Punjab & Haryana1Allahabad1

Key Topics

Section 26321Section 54F13Section 143(3)10Revision u/s 2637Section 115B6Capital Gains6Section 80G5Section 54B4Section 263(1)4Section 45

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

263 held that the entire transaction attracted tax on capital gains u/s. 45(4) of the Act. The assessee's appeal on the levy of capital gains tax on land value was allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal held that the reference to the valuer was not justified and therefore, the assessment of capital gains did not arise

4
Deduction4
Limitation/Time-bar3

PALLATHUKADAVIL IBRAHIMKUTTY ABDUL KABEER,ERNAKULAM vs. THE PCIT KOCHI-1, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed on the above terms, and his SA dismissed

ITA 428/COCH/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Judicialmember & Sa No. 78/Coch/2023 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Pallathukadavil Ibrahimkutty Principal Cit – 1 Abdul Kabeer C.R. Building, I.S. Press Road 71, Pallathukadavil Vs. Kochi 682018 Kanjoor P.O., Ernakulam 682575 [Pan: Aaopi0584P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Padmanathan K.V., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 54B

2(a) to s. 263(1) with reference to any inquiry or verification by the AO. 4.2 Section 54B of the Act, claim for deduction under which has been directed for verification and examination in the set aside proceedings, reads as under: Capital gain

PUTHUVAMANA RAMANI,KOCHI vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOCHI-1, KOCHI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 574/COCH/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Dec 2022AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Narayanan P Potty, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajasekhar, CIT(DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 45Section 54ESection 54F

Section 263 for revision of the Assessment order U/s143(3).The Page 2 of 9 only case raised by the respondent Principal commissioner is regarding the deposit of unutilized amount of Capital Gain

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

263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") dated 11.03.2024 for the assessment year 2018-19. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Act on 14.06.2021, determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.17

STERLING FARM RESEARCH AND SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,ERNAKULAM vs. THE PCIT, KOCHI-1, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 661/COCH/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Feb 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dassterling Farm Research & Services Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1 Pvt. Ltd. Kochi 29/2469 C2, Sterling House Vs. Pettah, Poonithura S.O. Ernakulam 682038 [Pan:Aadcs3199J] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Raja Kannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 50Section 50B

section 50, implying capital gain being assessable as a short-term capital gain (STCG) shall apply instead of sec.50B for `slump sale’, as invoked, returning capital gain as LTCG, which stood assessed as such. (b) a sum of Rs. 1 crore, forming part of the sale consideration per the said Agreement, was not included in the computation of capital gain

PALAKUNNATHU KANNAMPATHU SUSHIL KUMAR,NADAKKAVU vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 247/COCH/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Richard Mathew, CAFor Respondent: Shri M Rajasekhar, CIT(DR)
Section 263Section 45Section 54F

section 54F. The ld. AR also presented arguments with regard to the year of transfer and also with regard to the value considered for the purpose of calculating capital gains. The ld. DR supported the order of PCIT, 4. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The assessee in the year under consideration has offered

LAKSHMI S ALIAS LAKSHMI HARIGOVIND,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 611/COCH/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Feb 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Arora & Sandeepgosain

For Appellant: Shri Anil D. Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 263(1)

263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’hereinafter) dated 31.3.2022 in respect of the assessee’s assessment under section 147 read with section 143(3) of the Act dated 28.12.2019 for assessment year (AY) 2012-13. 2. The background facts of the case are that the assessee, along with 13 others, entered into a joint venture (JV) agreement

GOOD HOMES PVT LTD,KOCHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 884/COCH/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Aug 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shriabyt.Varkey, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.A.Gopalakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamuna Devi, Sr.AR
Section 133ASection 147Section 148

section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’) dated 18.3.2015 and 29.3.2014 for assessment year (AY) 2007-2008, respectively. The background facts of both the cases being same, these are heard together, and are being disposed of pera common, consolidated order for the sake of convenience. ITA Nos.870& 884 /Coch/2022 (AY 2007-08) Ajit

AJIT ASSOCIATES PRIVATE LIMITED,ERNAKULAM vs. JCIT, CORPORATE RANGE - 1, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 870/COCH/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Aug 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shriabyt.Varkey, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.A.Gopalakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamuna Devi, Sr.AR
Section 133ASection 147Section 148

section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’) dated 18.3.2015 and 29.3.2014 for assessment year (AY) 2007-2008, respectively. The background facts of both the cases being same, these are heard together, and are being disposed of pera common, consolidated order for the sake of convenience. ITA Nos.870& 884 /Coch/2022 (AY 2007-08) Ajit

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

2. The assessee had not furnished any evidences for the credits in his Capital account, during the, financial year other than the income returned as per the ITR, for the A.Y.2017-18. Thus, the expenditures in the asset side of the Balance Sheet as on 31.03.2017 of the assessee, against the amount of credits I in the Capital account

M/S.KALYAN JEWELLERS INDIA LTD,THRISSUR vs. THE ACIT, THRISSUR

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

ITA 744/COCH/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Shaji Sreejith, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(1)Section 263Section 5(1)Section 80GSection 80G(4)

2) to section 80G exceeds ten percent of adjusted gross total income, then the amount in excess of ten percent of adjusted gross total income shall be ignored. In this case the adjusted gross total income as per section 80G(4) is as follows:- Gross total income as per computation of assessee Rs.2,21,06,961 Less: deduction availed u/s.80GGB