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.

30 results for “capital gains”+ Section 282(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai436Delhi300Bangalore229Kolkata116Karnataka108Jaipur101Chennai79Ahmedabad67Panaji64Pune59Hyderabad54Chandigarh37Indore33Cochin30Amritsar28Raipur28Surat24Calcutta19Rajkot16Lucknow13Telangana11Cuttack10Nagpur9Agra7Visakhapatnam6Jodhpur5Patna5SC5Allahabad4Jabalpur3Rajasthan3Kerala2Punjab & Haryana1Andhra Pradesh1Varanasi1Ranchi1

Key Topics

Addition to Income20Exemption16Capital Gains15Section 2638Section 2(24)(vi)8Section 488Section 143(3)7Section 43C5Section 282(1)5Business Income

THE ITO, WD-2, THODUPUZHA, THODUPUZHA vs. SRI.TOMY MATHEW PARTNER OF MATHAI SONS, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

ITA 419/COCH/2007[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

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

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

capital gain at Rs.20,27,017/-. I.T.A. Nos.605/Coch/2005 & others 10.2 The contention of the Ld. AR is that the statement recorded by DDI(Inv.- II), Ernakulam on 23/04/1999 u/s. 131 of the Act has no evidentiary value as it is not supported by any corroborative material. Under section 131 of the Act, the income tax authority is empowered to examine

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI.MATHAI XAVIER, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

ITA 451/COCH/2007[1999-2000]Status: Disposed

Showing 1–20 of 30 · Page 1 of 2

5
Section 1324
Section 153A4
ITAT Cochin
17 Jan 2019
AY 1999-2000

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

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

capital gain at Rs.20,27,017/-. I.T.A. Nos.605/Coch/2005 & others 10.2 The contention of the Ld. AR is that the statement recorded by DDI(Inv.- II), Ernakulam on 23/04/1999 u/s. 131 of the Act has no evidentiary value as it is not supported by any corroborative material. Under section 131 of the Act, the income tax authority is empowered to examine

SRI.ESSA ISMAIL SAIT,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ACIT,CIR-2(1),, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

ITA 605/COCH/2005[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

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

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

capital gain at Rs.20,27,017/-. I.T.A. Nos.605/Coch/2005 & others 10.2 The contention of the Ld. AR is that the statement recorded by DDI(Inv.- II), Ernakulam on 23/04/1999 u/s. 131 of the Act has no evidentiary value as it is not supported by any corroborative material. Under section 131 of the Act, the income tax authority is empowered to examine

THE ITO, WARD-2, THODUPUZHA, THODUPUZHA vs. SRI.MARTIN JOHNY, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

ITA 354/COCH/2006[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

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

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

capital gain at Rs.20,27,017/-. I.T.A. Nos.605/Coch/2005 & others 10.2 The contention of the Ld. AR is that the statement recorded by DDI(Inv.- II), Ernakulam on 23/04/1999 u/s. 131 of the Act has no evidentiary value as it is not supported by any corroborative material. Under section 131 of the Act, the income tax authority is empowered to examine

THE ITO, WD-2, THODUPUZHA, THODUPUZHA vs. SRI.E.J.SONY, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

ITA 355/COCH/2006[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

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

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

capital gain at Rs.20,27,017/-. I.T.A. Nos.605/Coch/2005 & others 10.2 The contention of the Ld. AR is that the statement recorded by DDI(Inv.- II), Ernakulam on 23/04/1999 u/s. 131 of the Act has no evidentiary value as it is not supported by any corroborative material. Under section 131 of the Act, the income tax authority is empowered to examine

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI.E.M.PAUL, EDAKATTUKUDIYIL, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

ITA 449/COCH/2007[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

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

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

capital gain at Rs.20,27,017/-. I.T.A. Nos.605/Coch/2005 & others 10.2 The contention of the Ld. AR is that the statement recorded by DDI(Inv.- II), Ernakulam on 23/04/1999 u/s. 131 of the Act has no evidentiary value as it is not supported by any corroborative material. Under section 131 of the Act, the income tax authority is empowered to examine

THEACIT, CIR-1(1),EKM, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI.E.M.JOHNY, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

ITA 453/COCH/2007[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

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

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

capital gain at Rs.20,27,017/-. I.T.A. Nos.605/Coch/2005 & others 10.2 The contention of the Ld. AR is that the statement recorded by DDI(Inv.- II), Ernakulam on 23/04/1999 u/s. 131 of the Act has no evidentiary value as it is not supported by any corroborative material. Under section 131 of the Act, the income tax authority is empowered to examine

THE ACIT, CIR-1(1), ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI.JOSE MATHEW, M/S.E.V.MTHAI & SONS, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

ITA 450/COCH/2007[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

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

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

capital gain at Rs.20,27,017/-. I.T.A. Nos.605/Coch/2005 & others 10.2 The contention of the Ld. AR is that the statement recorded by DDI(Inv.- II), Ernakulam on 23/04/1999 u/s. 131 of the Act has no evidentiary value as it is not supported by any corroborative material. Under section 131 of the Act, the income tax authority is empowered to examine

THE ACIT, TRICHUR vs. SRI.ARUN MAJEED, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 494/COCH/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

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

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

282,280/- Less: purchase cost Rs. 63,82,291/- Profit Rs.1,22,99,898/- Addition: Rs.1,22,99,989/- Assessment Year : 2012-13 Property at Ayyanthole and Nadathara Ayyanthole Nadathara Sale Consideration Rs.4,72,59,120/- Rs.94,70,000/- Less purchase cost Rs.1,61,44,789/- Rs.17,19,750/- Profit Rs.3,11,14,331/- Rs.77,50,250/- Addition : Rs.3

THE ACIT, TRICHUR vs. SRI.ARUN MAJEED, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 495/COCH/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

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

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

282,280/- Less: purchase cost Rs. 63,82,291/- Profit Rs.1,22,99,898/- Addition: Rs.1,22,99,989/- Assessment Year : 2012-13 Property at Ayyanthole and Nadathara Ayyanthole Nadathara Sale Consideration Rs.4,72,59,120/- Rs.94,70,000/- Less purchase cost Rs.1,61,44,789/- Rs.17,19,750/- Profit Rs.3,11,14,331/- Rs.77,50,250/- Addition : Rs.3

THE ACIT, TRICHUR vs. SRI.ARUN MAJEED, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 496/COCH/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

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

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

282,280/- Less: purchase cost Rs. 63,82,291/- Profit Rs.1,22,99,898/- Addition: Rs.1,22,99,989/- Assessment Year : 2012-13 Property at Ayyanthole and Nadathara Ayyanthole Nadathara Sale Consideration Rs.4,72,59,120/- Rs.94,70,000/- Less purchase cost Rs.1,61,44,789/- Rs.17,19,750/- Profit Rs.3,11,14,331/- Rs.77,50,250/- Addition : Rs.3

THE ACIT, TRICHUR vs. SRI.ARUN MAJEED, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 497/COCH/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Feb 2019AY 2014-15

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

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

282,280/- Less: purchase cost Rs. 63,82,291/- Profit Rs.1,22,99,898/- Addition: Rs.1,22,99,989/- Assessment Year : 2012-13 Property at Ayyanthole and Nadathara Ayyanthole Nadathara Sale Consideration Rs.4,72,59,120/- Rs.94,70,000/- Less purchase cost Rs.1,61,44,789/- Rs.17,19,750/- Profit Rs.3,11,14,331/- Rs.77,50,250/- Addition : Rs.3

REENAZ PROPERTIES P. LTD,EDAPALLY, KOCHI vs. THE PR CIT, KOCHI

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

ITA 137/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.R.KrishnanFor Respondent: Sri.Sudhanshu Shekar Jha
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43CSection 50C

1. The order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax invoking the provision of Section 263 is bad in law. 2. The Assessing Officer has already taken a possible stand in the assessment and therefore, merely because she did not take the alternate possible stand, the order does not become erroneous. 3. The learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax ought

PARAKKADATH SIMON VARGHESE,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION , KOCHI CIRCLE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes and the stay application stands dismissed

ITA 533/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm & Sa No. 72/Coch/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Parakkadath Simon Varghese .......... Appellant Parakkadath House, Koratty South, Thrissur [Pan: Afgpv9060G] Vs. Dcit (International Taxation), Kochi .......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Gibi C. George, Advocate Revenue By: Ms. Neethu S., Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri Gibi C. George, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neethu S., Sr. DR
Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 143(3)Section 282(1)

1,08,48,000/-. The AO also made addition of short term capital gains of Rs. 27,48,000/- on sale of land as the appellant had failed to furnish information called for in support of the return of income submitted by the appellant. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order

BENEESH KUMAR,KOCHI vs. ITO, NON CORP WARD 1(1), KOCHI

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

ITA 1161/COCH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 Beneesh Kumar .......... Appellant Madathuparambu House, Thattzham Road Vaduthala, Kochi 682023 [Pan: Agipb7548Q] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Non-Corporate Ward, Kochi Appellant By: Shri Ramesh Cherian, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Omanakutan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 19.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.04.2025

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh Cherian, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Omanakutan, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 282(1)Section 54Section 54F

capital gains returned by the appellant of Rs. 57,28,310/-, however denied the claim of deduction u/s. 54F as the appellant had allegedly failed to adduce proof in support of the claim made. 4. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. 5. Being aggrieved

SUMA AYIRAMPALLIL CHANDRANGATHAN,PAIPPAD vs. ITO, WARD 2, THIRUVALLA, THIRUVALLA

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

ITA 159/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2016-17 Suma Ayirampallil Chandrangathan .......... Appellant Mohanalayam, Pallikachira, Vellappally Paippad, Changanassery 686537 [Pan: Aejpc1720J] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward -2, Thiruvalla .......... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri K. Balaji, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 282(1)

capital gain. The return of income for AY 2016-17 was filed on 22.12.2016 declaring total income of Rs. 2,83,780/-. The said return of income was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act vide intimation dated 20.03.2017 assessing the taxable income at Rs.1,44,401/-. 2 Suma Ayirampallil Chandrangathan 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before

SMT.K.B.SONY,COCHIN vs. THE DCIT, COCHIN

In the result, i) The appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 320/COCH/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 May 2018AY 2009-10

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

Section 69

282 ITR 259) and confirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. P.V. Kalyanasundaram (2007) (294 ITR 49), third party statement cannot be considered as evidence so as to confirm the addition in the hands of the assessee unless there is corroborative material. In view of this, we are of the opinion that the addition made towards

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

282 309 4162823 363223 Cashew Corporation 4. Nut Products 27034.560 6941950 257 309 83543679 1411729 Company 5. Surya Exports 385.560 95200 247 309 119138 23938 6. Prathyush 453.600 112000 247 309 140162 28162 Exports 7. Swathy Foods 17010 4050000 238 309 5256090 1206090 TOTAL 20061121 3.7 For the assessment year 2009-10 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

282 309 4162823 363223 Cashew Corporation 4. Nut Products 27034.560 6941950 257 309 83543679 1411729 Company 5. Surya Exports 385.560 95200 247 309 119138 23938 6. Prathyush 453.600 112000 247 309 140162 28162 Exports 7. Swathy Foods 17010 4050000 238 309 5256090 1206090 TOTAL 20061121 3.7 For the assessment year 2009-10 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

282 309 4162823 363223 Cashew Corporation 4. Nut Products 27034.560 6941950 257 309 83543679 1411729 Company 5. Surya Exports 385.560 95200 247 309 119138 23938 6. Prathyush 453.600 112000 247 309 140162 28162 Exports 7. Swathy Foods 17010 4050000 238 309 5256090 1206090 TOTAL 20061121 3.7 For the assessment year 2009-10 in the case of T.C. Usha