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.

10 results for “capital gains”+ Section 274clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi531Mumbai524Jaipur199Bangalore185Chennai126Kolkata115Ahmedabad114Karnataka114Hyderabad95Pune88Visakhapatnam55Indore46Surat33Chandigarh33Cuttack27Raipur26Guwahati23Calcutta19Ranchi18Nagpur13Rajkot11Cochin10Lucknow9Telangana8Jodhpur7Agra6Amritsar6SC4Panaji4Rajasthan3Varanasi2Dehradun1Andhra Pradesh1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 10B20Section 271(1)(c)16Section 153A11Penalty8Section 2746Section 269S6Addition to Income6Section 80H5Section 2715Section 139(1)

THE ITO, COCHIN vs. SRI.AMBADY KRISHNA MENON, COCHIN

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection filed

ITA 4/COCH/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

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

Section 139(1)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

Capital Gains has already been disclosed in the original Return of Income field u/s 139(1) by the Assessee on 30/07/2011 for which disclosure was correct - including the transaction itself and the gross amount received on such sale; except for a mistake in the income calculated on the sale of equity shares of the company and there was no concealment

SRI.ALAVIKUTTY,VENGARA,MALAPPURAM vs. THE DCIT, CALICUT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 524/COCH/2018[2007-08]Status: Disposed
4
Deduction4
Capital Gains3
ITAT Cochin
24 Jan 2019
AY 2007-08

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

Section 132Section 153Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 27I(1)Section 27I(1)(c)

capital gains accrued to the assessee on the sale of property which was not disclosed by the assessee in the return of income filed in response to notice-u/s 153C. Therefore, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c). In reply to the notice issued u/s. 271(1)(c), the assessee submitted that he had disclosed

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

capital gain Rs. 27,710/- on sale of 1900 shares of Indian Company was not declared in the return of income. The assessee filed a rectification petition before the AO for the reason that while the perquisite value of ESOP is added to assessed income, the credit for the TDS on ESOP was not given

M/S. ACCEL TRANSMATIC LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

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

ITA 373/COCH/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 May 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri Abraham P. George, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 10BSection 70Section 72

274, judgment of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Yokogama India Ltd. (supra) stood affirmed and the judgment of the very same High Court in the case of Himmatsingika Saide Ltd. 286 ITR 255 stood reversed. In so far as brought forward loss was concerned, Ld. AR submitted that even though such brought forward

M/S.ACCEL TRANSMATIC LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

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

ITA 374/COCH/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Abraham P. George, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 10BSection 70Section 72

274, judgment of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Yokogama India Ltd. (supra) stood affirmed and the judgment of the very same High Court in the case of Himmatsingika Saide Ltd. 286 ITR 255 stood reversed. In so far as brought forward loss was concerned, Ld. AR submitted that even though such brought forward

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

VERAMBALLY THAZHIKUNIYIL VINODAN,KOZHIKODE vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOCHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed\nOrder pronounced in the open court on 06th August, 2025

ITA 350/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Aug 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: \nShri R. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: \nShri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 269SSection 271DSection 274

274 r.w.s. 271D on\n18/10/2022 and in response to the show-cause notice, the assessee\nfiled explanation stating that the penalty proceedings were bad in\nlaw and the same were not initiated within the reasonable period, the\nassessee was ignorant about the amended provision to section\n269SS, which came into effect just 15 days before the alleged\nviolation took place

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

MS.KALLIYATH CYRIL RAJU,COCHIN vs. THE DCIT, COCHIN

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 54/COCH/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 May 2018AY 2010-11

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

Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act, directing the assessee to explain as to why penalty for concealing the source of income should not be levied. After considering the objections of the Ld. AR, the Assessing Officer levied I.T.A. Nos.54 &55/C/2017 penalty for these two assessment years at 100% of tax evaded at Rs.60

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)

sections 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of 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