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.

178 results for “capital gains”+ Section 36(2)(i)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai3,652Delhi2,708Bangalore1,207Chennai944Ahmedabad803Kolkata690Jaipur580Hyderabad390Pune320Chandigarh302Indore240Surat225Karnataka193Cochin178Raipur144Visakhapatnam143Nagpur103Agra90Rajkot89Amritsar78Guwahati74Lucknow70Calcutta68Cuttack67SC55Telangana43Panaji42Jodhpur28Ranchi20Jabalpur15Allahabad15Dehradun15Patna13Kerala12Varanasi11Rajasthan5Punjab & Haryana4Orissa4A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1Himachal Pradesh1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 14A111Section 25073Section 143(3)51Section 37(1)31Addition to Income29Disallowance27Section 26322Section 80P20Deduction20Section 147

ACEELERATED FREEZE DRYING CO.LTD,ALAPPUZHA vs. DCIT, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed and the appeal of the

ITA 1286/COCH/2005[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Jun 2019AY 2002-03

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

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(14)Section 42Section 50BSection 50B(1)

gains on the transfer of he said property should be assessed u/s. 50B, the CIT(A) ought to have see that according to proviso to section 50B(1), capital assets “owned and held” by an assessee for less than 36 months shall be deemed as short term capital assets. The CIT(A) went wrong in applying the definition of capital

Showing 1–20 of 178 · Page 1 of 9

...
16
Section 153A16
Capital Gains7

DCIT, ALAPPUZHA vs. M/S ACEELERATED FREEZE DRYING CO, LTD, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed and the appeal of the

ITA 714/COCH/2008[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Jun 2019AY 2002-03

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

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(14)Section 42Section 50BSection 50B(1)

gains on the transfer of he said property should be assessed u/s. 50B, the CIT(A) ought to have see that according to proviso to section 50B(1), capital assets “owned and held” by an assessee for less than 36 months shall be deemed as short term capital assets. The CIT(A) went wrong in applying the definition of capital

SMT.GRACY BABU,ADOOR P.O. vs. THE DCIT CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

ITA 32/COCH/2019[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2004-05

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

2. The CIT(A) was wrong in upholding the denial of exemption u/s. 11 of the Act which was against law due to following reasons: b) The Assessing Officer has not pointed out a single case where any accounted income of the trust has been misutilised or diverted by the Trustees for personal use. 3. There was no violation

CARMEL EDUCATIONAL TRUST,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. DCIT,CEN- CIRCLE,, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA no

ITA 305/COCH/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2005-06

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

2. The CIT(A) was wrong in upholding the denial of exemption u/s. 11 of the Act which was against law due to following reasons: b) The Assessing Officer has not pointed out a single case where any accounted income of the trust has been misutilised or diverted by the Trustees for personal use. 3. There was no violation

THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM vs. SRI.JOSE THOMAS, ADOOR

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA no

ITA 55/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

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

2. The CIT(A) was wrong in upholding the denial of exemption u/s. 11 of the Act which was against law due to following reasons: b) The Assessing Officer has not pointed out a single case where any accounted income of the trust has been misutilised or diverted by the Trustees for personal use. 3. There was no violation

SRI.JOSE THOMAS,ADOOR vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

ITA 27/COCH/2019[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2004-05

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

2. The CIT(A) was wrong in upholding the denial of exemption u/s. 11 of the Act which was against law due to following reasons: b) The Assessing Officer has not pointed out a single case where any accounted income of the trust has been misutilised or diverted by the Trustees for personal use. 3. There was no violation

MRS.GRACY BABU,ADOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

ITA 210/COCH/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

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

2. The CIT(A) was wrong in upholding the denial of exemption u/s. 11 of the Act which was against law due to following reasons: b) The Assessing Officer has not pointed out a single case where any accounted income of the trust has been misutilised or diverted by the Trustees for personal use. 3. There was no violation

CARMEL EDUCATIONAL TRUST,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. DCIT,CEN- CIRCLE,, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA no

ITA 308/COCH/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

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

2. The CIT(A) was wrong in upholding the denial of exemption u/s. 11 of the Act which was against law due to following reasons: b) The Assessing Officer has not pointed out a single case where any accounted income of the trust has been misutilised or diverted by the Trustees for personal use. 3. There was no violation

SRI.JOSE THOMAS,ADOOR vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

ITA 28/COCH/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2005-06

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

2. The CIT(A) was wrong in upholding the denial of exemption u/s. 11 of the Act which was against law due to following reasons: b) The Assessing Officer has not pointed out a single case where any accounted income of the trust has been misutilised or diverted by the Trustees for personal use. 3. There was no violation

SRI.JOSE THOMAS,ADOOR vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

ITA 30/COCH/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2007-08

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

2. The CIT(A) was wrong in upholding the denial of exemption u/s. 11 of the Act which was against law due to following reasons: b) The Assessing Officer has not pointed out a single case where any accounted income of the trust has been misutilised or diverted by the Trustees for personal use. 3. There was no violation

CARMEL EDUCATIONAL TRUST,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. DCIT,CEN- CIRCLE,, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA no

ITA 310/COCH/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

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

2. The CIT(A) was wrong in upholding the denial of exemption u/s. 11 of the Act which was against law due to following reasons: b) The Assessing Officer has not pointed out a single case where any accounted income of the trust has been misutilised or diverted by the Trustees for personal use. 3. There was no violation

SRI.JOSE THOMAS,ADOOR vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

ITA 31/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

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

2. The CIT(A) was wrong in upholding the denial of exemption u/s. 11 of the Act which was against law due to following reasons: b) The Assessing Officer has not pointed out a single case where any accounted income of the trust has been misutilised or diverted by the Trustees for personal use. 3. There was no violation

THE DCIT CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM vs. SMT.GRACY BABU, ADOOR P.O.

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA no

ITA 54/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

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

2. The CIT(A) was wrong in upholding the denial of exemption u/s. 11 of the Act which was against law due to following reasons: b) The Assessing Officer has not pointed out a single case where any accounted income of the trust has been misutilised or diverted by the Trustees for personal use. 3. There was no violation

SMT.GRACY BABU,ADOOR P.O. vs. THE DCIT CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

ITA 35/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

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

2. The CIT(A) was wrong in upholding the denial of exemption u/s. 11 of the Act which was against law due to following reasons: b) The Assessing Officer has not pointed out a single case where any accounted income of the trust has been misutilised or diverted by the Trustees for personal use. 3. There was no violation

CARMEL EDUCATIONAL TRUST,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. DCIT,CEN- CIRCLE,, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA no

ITA 307/COCH/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2007-08

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

2. The CIT(A) was wrong in upholding the denial of exemption u/s. 11 of the Act which was against law due to following reasons: b) The Assessing Officer has not pointed out a single case where any accounted income of the trust has been misutilised or diverted by the Trustees for personal use. 3. There was no violation

SRI.JOSE THOMAS,ADOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ACIT,CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

ITA 213/COCH/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

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

2. The CIT(A) was wrong in upholding the denial of exemption u/s. 11 of the Act which was against law due to following reasons: b) The Assessing Officer has not pointed out a single case where any accounted income of the trust has been misutilised or diverted by the Trustees for personal use. 3. There was no violation

CARMEL EDUCATIONAL TRUST,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. DCIT,CEN- CIRCLE,, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA no

ITA 306/COCH/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2006-07

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

2. The CIT(A) was wrong in upholding the denial of exemption u/s. 11 of the Act which was against law due to following reasons: b) The Assessing Officer has not pointed out a single case where any accounted income of the trust has been misutilised or diverted by the Trustees for personal use. 3. There was no violation

SRI.JOSE THOMAS,ADOOR vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

ITA 29/COCH/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2006-07

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

2. The CIT(A) was wrong in upholding the denial of exemption u/s. 11 of the Act which was against law due to following reasons: b) The Assessing Officer has not pointed out a single case where any accounted income of the trust has been misutilised or diverted by the Trustees for personal use. 3. There was no violation

SMT.GRACY BABU,ADOOR P.O. vs. THE DCIT CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

ITA 33/COCH/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2005-06

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

2. The CIT(A) was wrong in upholding the denial of exemption u/s. 11 of the Act which was against law due to following reasons: b) The Assessing Officer has not pointed out a single case where any accounted income of the trust has been misutilised or diverted by the Trustees for personal use. 3. There was no violation

CARMEL EDUCATIONAL TRUST,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. DCIT,CEN- CIRCLE,, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA no

ITA 309/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

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

2. The CIT(A) was wrong in upholding the denial of exemption u/s. 11 of the Act which was against law due to following reasons: b) The Assessing Officer has not pointed out a single case where any accounted income of the trust has been misutilised or diverted by the Trustees for personal use. 3. There was no violation