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.

165 results for “capital gains”+ Section 41(4)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,893Delhi2,250Bangalore937Chennai752Ahmedabad612Kolkata559Jaipur447Hyderabad356Chandigarh275Surat252Pune240Indore217Karnataka175Cochin165Raipur120Agra83Cuttack78Nagpur66Calcutta60Rajkot59Visakhapatnam59Lucknow57Guwahati48Amritsar44SC42Panaji37Telangana30Dehradun21Jodhpur15Patna13Ranchi12Allahabad10Kerala9Jabalpur7Rajasthan6Varanasi5A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2Orissa2Punjab & Haryana2Andhra Pradesh2A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1

Key Topics

Section 25073Section 143(3)48Addition to Income39Section 26329Section 37(1)26Disallowance13Section 14811Reassessment11Section 408Section 132

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

capital gain u/s. 45(4) of the Act. In other words, provisions of both section 45(4) and section 50 cannot be applied to the same amount. In this regard reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Urmila Ramesh [1998] 230 ITR 422 (SC) rendered

Showing 1–20 of 165 · Page 1 of 9

...
8
Exemption8
Search & Seizure8

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)

capital requirements more so when the appellant has been consistently following the system of accounting year after year and booking into account the loss or gain arising on re-instatement of foreign exchange loans. 6) The Commissioner of Income-tax[Appeals] did not consider the opinion given by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India in regard to the treatment

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)

capital requirements more so when the appellant has been consistently following the system of accounting year after year and booking into account the loss or gain arising on re-instatement of foreign exchange loans. 6) The Commissioner of Income-tax[Appeals] did not consider the opinion given by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India in regard to the treatment

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: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

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

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

gains tax for the transfer of the capital asset i.e. Kavitha Theatre. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P.varghese Vs. I.T.O. and Another, 131 ITR 597 (SC) and CIT Vs. P.V.Kalyanasundaram, 294 ITR 49 (SC) clearly supports the case of the assessee. The sale value of consideration as shown by the assessee

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

gains tax for the transfer of the capital asset i.e. Kavitha Theatre. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P.varghese Vs. I.T.O. and Another, 131 ITR 597 (SC) and CIT Vs. P.V.Kalyanasundaram, 294 ITR 49 (SC) clearly supports the case of the assessee. The sale value of consideration as shown by the assessee

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

gains tax for the transfer of the capital asset i.e. Kavitha Theatre. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P.varghese Vs. I.T.O. and Another, 131 ITR 597 (SC) and CIT Vs. P.V.Kalyanasundaram, 294 ITR 49 (SC) clearly supports the case of the assessee. The sale value of consideration as shown by the assessee

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

gains tax for the transfer of the capital asset i.e. Kavitha Theatre. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P.varghese Vs. I.T.O. and Another, 131 ITR 597 (SC) and CIT Vs. P.V.Kalyanasundaram, 294 ITR 49 (SC) clearly supports the case of the assessee. The sale value of consideration as shown by the assessee

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

gains tax for the transfer of the capital asset i.e. Kavitha Theatre. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P.varghese Vs. I.T.O. and Another, 131 ITR 597 (SC) and CIT Vs. P.V.Kalyanasundaram, 294 ITR 49 (SC) clearly supports the case of the assessee. The sale value of consideration as shown by the assessee

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

gains tax for the transfer of the capital asset i.e. Kavitha Theatre. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P.varghese Vs. I.T.O. and Another, 131 ITR 597 (SC) and CIT Vs. P.V.Kalyanasundaram, 294 ITR 49 (SC) clearly supports the case of the assessee. The sale value of consideration as shown by the assessee

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

gains tax for the transfer of the capital asset i.e. Kavitha Theatre. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P.varghese Vs. I.T.O. and Another, 131 ITR 597 (SC) and CIT Vs. P.V.Kalyanasundaram, 294 ITR 49 (SC) clearly supports the case of the assessee. The sale value of consideration as shown by the assessee

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

gains tax for the transfer of the capital asset i.e. Kavitha Theatre. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P.varghese Vs. I.T.O. and Another, 131 ITR 597 (SC) and CIT Vs. P.V.Kalyanasundaram, 294 ITR 49 (SC) clearly supports the case of the assessee. The sale value of consideration as shown by the assessee

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

section 13 of the I.T. Act by the Trust and the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) were misdirected in considering it’s activity of running an Engineering College as running of a business. 4. Trust claimed utilization and set off of carry forward deficit for earlier years but the CIT(A) erred in not considering such claim, just

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

section 13 of the I.T. Act by the Trust and the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) were misdirected in considering it’s activity of running an Engineering College as running of a business. 4. Trust claimed utilization and set off of carry forward deficit for earlier years but the CIT(A) erred in not considering such claim, just

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

section 13 of the I.T. Act by the Trust and the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) were misdirected in considering it’s activity of running an Engineering College as running of a business. 4. Trust claimed utilization and set off of carry forward deficit for earlier years but the CIT(A) erred in not considering such claim, just

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

section 13 of the I.T. Act by the Trust and the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) were misdirected in considering it’s activity of running an Engineering College as running of a business. 4. Trust claimed utilization and set off of carry forward deficit for earlier years but the CIT(A) erred in not considering such claim, just

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

section 13 of the I.T. Act by the Trust and the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) were misdirected in considering it’s activity of running an Engineering College as running of a business. 4. Trust claimed utilization and set off of carry forward deficit for earlier years but the CIT(A) erred in not considering such claim, just

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

section 13 of the I.T. Act by the Trust and the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) were misdirected in considering it’s activity of running an Engineering College as running of a business. 4. Trust claimed utilization and set off of carry forward deficit for earlier years but the CIT(A) erred in not considering such claim, just

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

section 13 of the I.T. Act by the Trust and the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) were misdirected in considering it’s activity of running an Engineering College as running of a business. 4. Trust claimed utilization and set off of carry forward deficit for earlier years but the CIT(A) erred in not considering such claim, just

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

section 13 of the I.T. Act by the Trust and the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) were misdirected in considering it’s activity of running an Engineering College as running of a business. 4. Trust claimed utilization and set off of carry forward deficit for earlier years but the CIT(A) erred in not considering such claim, just

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

section 13 of the I.T. Act by the Trust and the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) were misdirected in considering it’s activity of running an Engineering College as running of a business. 4. Trust claimed utilization and set off of carry forward deficit for earlier years but the CIT(A) erred in not considering such claim, just