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.

22 results for “capital gains”+ Section 271(1)(a)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,486Delhi1,311Chennai318Ahmedabad293Kolkata268Bangalore243Jaipur238Hyderabad149Karnataka118Indore110Pune110Surat105Visakhapatnam65Chandigarh65Raipur59Calcutta54Lucknow52Nagpur41Rajkot31Cuttack29Ranchi27Guwahati26Cochin22Dehradun17Patna16Amritsar16Agra15Telangana14SC12Jodhpur10Panaji7Allahabad6Jabalpur5Varanasi4Rajasthan3Punjab & Haryana2K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1Gauhati1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)21Addition to Income20Exemption15Section 143(3)8Section 2747Section 139(1)7Section 1487Section 54F7Penalty6Section 80H

ROSE GEORGE KOLLANUR,THRISSUR vs. ITO WARD 2(2), THRISSUR, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 610/COCH/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Dec 2022AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri V Ramnath, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54F

271/- has been levied as additional capital gain and an exemption of only Rs. 17,81,324/- under Section 54F of the Act has been allowed which is opposed to facts, circumstances and the law applicable to this case. 2. The Learned Income Tax Officer has failed to notice the fact that a substantial portion amounting

Showing 1–20 of 22 · Page 1 of 2

5
Section 2715
Deduction5

M/S.APOLLO TYRES LTD,COCHIN vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, COCHIN

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

ITA 609/COCH/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 Apollo Tyres Ltd. .......... Appellant 3Rd Floor, Areekal Mansion, Panampilly Nagar, Kochi 682036 [Pan: Aaaca6990Q] Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(1), Kochi ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Abraham Joseph Markos, Adv. Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri Abraham Joseph Markos, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 32Section 32(1)(iia)Section 35Section 43(1)Section 92C

capital items can be only adjusted in terms of provisions section 43A of the Act. The loss or gain on such 30 Apollo Tyres Ltd. transaction had no impact on the determination of taxable income. Therefore, the AO had clearly fell in error in brining the same to tax in the year of reversal of the loss especially in view

MR. RANJITH THAZHE KUNHAMBATH,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO, WARD 3(3), NON CORPORATE RANGE 2, KOCHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee and the stay petition is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1000/COCH/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri. Paulson, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

section 271 (1) (iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) shall be the amount of tax sought to be evaded by reason of the concealment of particulars of income. In the case of the assessee, entire tax has been paid much before filing return of income by M/s. HDFC Bank Limited, the person responsible

SRI HARIKUTTAN T,KAYAMKULAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2, ALLEPPEY

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

ITA 885/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember Harikuttan T. The Income Tax Officer (2) 1, Edayilaveetil Tharayil Aayakar Bhavan Njakkanal P.O., Pathiyoor Vs. Alappuzha Co0Llectorate Kayalmulam 690533 Alappuzha 688011 [Pan:Alrpt7536J] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri M.S. Venkitachalam, Ca Respondent By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing:08.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement:03.11.2023 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Is An Appeal By Assessee Challenging The Confirmation Of Penalty Levied Under Section 270A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18 Vide Order Dated 17/02/2022, By The First Appellate Authority, Being The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Nfac [Cit(A)] Vide It’S Order Dated 06.07.2022. 2.1 The Brief Background Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, A Retired Defence Personnel, Is A Registered Money Lender Under The Kerala Money Lenders Act (Kml Act), Lending Money On Interest Against Mortgage Of Loan. For The Relevant Year He Returned, Besides Pension, Income From This Business At Rs.2,05,691. On Verification, It Was Found By The Assessing Officer (Ao) That The Assessee Was Maintaining Six Bank Accounts, I.E., Three Each With Two Banks, Being South Indian Bank (Sib) & State Bank Of India (Sbi). Transactions With The Former Were Undisclosed. The Reason Explained Was That The Gold Pawned By His Customers With Him For Availing Loan, Was In Turn Mortgaged With This Bank To Source Funds For Further Lending. These

For Appellant: Shri M.S. Venkitachalam, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 270ASection 274Section 37(1)

capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee), laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession". Explanation 1.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that any expenditure incurred by an assessee

SHRI.PRAKASH R. NAIR,KOLLAM vs. DCIT, KOLLAM

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

ITA 141/COCH/2021[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2024AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasprakash R. Nair Dy.Cit, Central Circle Prop. Dhanya Foods Kollam Kochuppilammoodu Vs. Kollam 691001 [Pan:Abfpn4424P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 148(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80Section 801A(9)Section 80HSection 80I

gain of the business. As such, where the accounts are prepared without disclosing the real cost of the goods in trade, he is duty bound to determine the taxable income by making computation in the manner he deems fit. Given the clear law in the matter, the issue becomes principally factual, wholly unproved. In our clear view, therefore, the Tribunal

DY.CIT, CIRCLE 1(1) & TPS, THRISSUR, THRISSUR vs. ARUN MAJEED, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands allowed

ITA 388/COCH/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dy. Cit, Circle 1(1) & Tps, Thrissur .......... Appellant [Pan: Adopa9351R] Vs. Arun Majeed .......... Respondent Palak Velyannur Temple Road Veliyannur, Thrissur 680021 Appellant By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Respondent By: ------- None ------- Date Of Hearing: 05.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2025

For Appellant: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: ------- None -------
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271(1)(i)Section 274

Capital gain Rs. 8,74,837 ii) Profit from land sale Rs. 10,66,19,832 iii) Rent Rs. 1,08,000 iv) Credits in FB Olarikkara Rs. 3,74,61,047 v) Credits in YES Bank Rs. 1,00,00,000 vi) Cash Deficit Rs. 47,03,300 vii) Inflation of expenses Rs. 5,97,259 viii) Undisclosed discount

RIYAS NELLIYOTE,KUTTIADI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE -2(1), KOZHIKODE

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

ITA 767/COCH/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Sri.C.B.M.Warrier, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 292BSection 54F

section 271(1)(c) of the Act, as per order dt.25.04.2019. 2. The appellant went on appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), and as per order in DIN No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1066407075(1) dt.04.07.2024, the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, has dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant. 3. The NOTICE issued by the Assessing Officer for imposing penalty u/s.271(1

CHRISTUDANAM YASSAYA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

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

ITA 840/COCH/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2011-12 Christudanam Yassaya .......... Appellant Bathel Kp 17A Maruthoor, Vattapara P.O. Thiruvananthapuram 695028 [Pan: Acmpy4412C] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1) .......... Respondent Aayakar Bhavan, Kowdiar Thiruvananthapuram 695003

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 142Section 144Section 148Section 264Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

capital gain on sale of property at Rs. 32,42,980/-. On the above addition the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. This assessment order was passed u/s. 144 r.w.s. 264 on 29.11.2019 at a total income of Rs. 38,32,110/-. 3. The appellant, in response to the show cause notice u/s. 271(1

GIJU PURAPADATHIL MATHAI,ERNAKULAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CORP WARD 2(1), KOCHI

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

ITA 214/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2016-17 Giju Purapadathil Mathai .......... Appellant 5-B Parambil Thara Corss Road, Ivory Heights Panampilly Nagar, Ernakulam 682036 [Pan: Ahopm6606R] Vs. Acit, Corporate Ward- 2(1), Kochi .......... Respondent Assessee By: Smt. Parvathy Ammal, Ca Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 09.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.08.2025

For Appellant: Smt. Parvathy Ammal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for AY 2016-17. However, based on the information available with the department that the appellant sold immovable property for a consideration of Rs. 2 Giju Purapadathil Mathai 86,20,665/-, the National Assessment Unit (hereinafter called "the AO")formed an opinion that income escaped assessment to tax. Accordingly

SRI.K.RAVINDRANATHAN NAIR,KOLLAM vs. THE ACIT, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 46/COCH/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

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

271 275 1413478 20178 Cashew Co. assessee (Firm) & Others 5. Sun Food Son 19845.00 3799880 191 275 5457375 1657495 Corporation 6. Prakash Son 2885 551100 191 275 733468 182368 Exports 7. Nut Products Daughter 1428 337220 236 275 392947 55727 Company TOTAL 65778.36 13116854 18029389 4912535 3.8 For the assessment year 2010-11 in the case of T.C. Usha

M/S. VIJAYALAXMICASHEW CO.,,KOLLAM vs. THE ACIT, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 47/COCH/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

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

271 275 1413478 20178 Cashew Co. assessee (Firm) & Others 5. Sun Food Son 19845.00 3799880 191 275 5457375 1657495 Corporation 6. Prakash Son 2885 551100 191 275 733468 182368 Exports 7. Nut Products Daughter 1428 337220 236 275 392947 55727 Company TOTAL 65778.36 13116854 18029389 4912535 3.8 For the assessment year 2010-11 in the case of T.C. Usha

SRI.R. PRATAP,KOLLAM vs. THE ACIT, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 37/COCH/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

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

271 275 1413478 20178 Cashew Co. assessee (Firm) & Others 5. Sun Food Son 19845.00 3799880 191 275 5457375 1657495 Corporation 6. Prakash Son 2885 551100 191 275 733468 182368 Exports 7. Nut Products Daughter 1428 337220 236 275 392947 55727 Company TOTAL 65778.36 13116854 18029389 4912535 3.8 For the assessment year 2010-11 in the case of T.C. Usha

SRI.R. PRATAP,KOLLAM vs. THE ACIT, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 38/COCH/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

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

271 275 1413478 20178 Cashew Co. assessee (Firm) & Others 5. Sun Food Son 19845.00 3799880 191 275 5457375 1657495 Corporation 6. Prakash Son 2885 551100 191 275 733468 182368 Exports 7. Nut Products Daughter 1428 337220 236 275 392947 55727 Company TOTAL 65778.36 13116854 18029389 4912535 3.8 For the assessment year 2010-11 in the case of T.C. Usha

SRI.R.PRAKASH,KOLLAM vs. THE ACIT, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 40/COCH/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

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

271 275 1413478 20178 Cashew Co. assessee (Firm) & Others 5. Sun Food Son 19845.00 3799880 191 275 5457375 1657495 Corporation 6. Prakash Son 2885 551100 191 275 733468 182368 Exports 7. Nut Products Daughter 1428 337220 236 275 392947 55727 Company TOTAL 65778.36 13116854 18029389 4912535 3.8 For the assessment year 2010-11 in the case of T.C. Usha

SRI.R. PRATAP,KOLLAM vs. THE ACIT, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 39/COCH/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

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

271 275 1413478 20178 Cashew Co. assessee (Firm) & Others 5. Sun Food Son 19845.00 3799880 191 275 5457375 1657495 Corporation 6. Prakash Son 2885 551100 191 275 733468 182368 Exports 7. Nut Products Daughter 1428 337220 236 275 392947 55727 Company TOTAL 65778.36 13116854 18029389 4912535 3.8 For the assessment year 2010-11 in the case of T.C. Usha

SRI.R.PRAKASH,KOLLAM vs. THE ACIT, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 42/COCH/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

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

271 275 1413478 20178 Cashew Co. assessee (Firm) & Others 5. Sun Food Son 19845.00 3799880 191 275 5457375 1657495 Corporation 6. Prakash Son 2885 551100 191 275 733468 182368 Exports 7. Nut Products Daughter 1428 337220 236 275 392947 55727 Company TOTAL 65778.36 13116854 18029389 4912535 3.8 For the assessment year 2010-11 in the case of T.C. Usha

SRI.R.PRAKASH,KOLLAM vs. THE ACIT, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 43/COCH/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

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

271 275 1413478 20178 Cashew Co. assessee (Firm) & Others 5. Sun Food Son 19845.00 3799880 191 275 5457375 1657495 Corporation 6. Prakash Son 2885 551100 191 275 733468 182368 Exports 7. Nut Products Daughter 1428 337220 236 275 392947 55727 Company TOTAL 65778.36 13116854 18029389 4912535 3.8 For the assessment year 2010-11 in the case of T.C. Usha

SMT. T.C. USHA,KOLLAM vs. THE ACIT, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 45/COCH/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

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

271 275 1413478 20178 Cashew Co. assessee (Firm) & Others 5. Sun Food Son 19845.00 3799880 191 275 5457375 1657495 Corporation 6. Prakash Son 2885 551100 191 275 733468 182368 Exports 7. Nut Products Daughter 1428 337220 236 275 392947 55727 Company TOTAL 65778.36 13116854 18029389 4912535 3.8 For the assessment year 2010-11 in the case of T.C. Usha

M/S. VIJAYALAXMICASHEW CO.,,KOLLAM vs. THE ACIT, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 48/COCH/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

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

271 275 1413478 20178 Cashew Co. assessee (Firm) & Others 5. Sun Food Son 19845.00 3799880 191 275 5457375 1657495 Corporation 6. Prakash Son 2885 551100 191 275 733468 182368 Exports 7. Nut Products Daughter 1428 337220 236 275 392947 55727 Company TOTAL 65778.36 13116854 18029389 4912535 3.8 For the assessment year 2010-11 in the case of T.C. Usha

M/S. VIJAYALAXMICASHEW CO.,,KOLLAM vs. THE ACIT, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 49/COCH/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

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

271 275 1413478 20178 Cashew Co. assessee (Firm) & Others 5. Sun Food Son 19845.00 3799880 191 275 5457375 1657495 Corporation 6. Prakash Son 2885 551100 191 275 733468 182368 Exports 7. Nut Products Daughter 1428 337220 236 275 392947 55727 Company TOTAL 65778.36 13116854 18029389 4912535 3.8 For the assessment year 2010-11 in the case of T.C. Usha