BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtAI 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.

6 results for “capital gains”+ Section 50C(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai265Delhi193Jaipur111Hyderabad78Chennai78Ahmedabad73Kolkata58Indore57Surat51Pune43Nagpur39Bangalore38Visakhapatnam29Lucknow27Agra24Rajkot21Chandigarh21Dehradun17Raipur16Patna15Jodhpur10Jabalpur7Cochin6Amritsar6Panaji3Allahabad3Cuttack2Varanasi2Ranchi1Guwahati1

Key Topics

Section 53A8Section 50C6Section 2(47)5Addition to Income5Section 143(3)4Section 55A4Capital Gains4Long Term Capital Gains4Survey u/s 133A

SILLS KARINGATTIL JOSE,NEDUMKANDOM vs. ITO WARD 2, THODUPUZHA

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 132/COCH/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhsils Karingattil Jose Income Tax Officer Np 3/406, Karingattil Ward - 2, House, Munnar Road Thodupuzha Vs. Nedumkandom P.O. [Pan: Afopj8789C] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P. M. Veeramani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Section 2(47)Section 2(47)(V)Section 250Section 50CSection 53ASection 56(2)(vii)

1. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)-12, Bengaluru has grossly erred in sustaining the addition in part, for the assessment year 2010-11, on the finding that 2 Sils Karingattil Jose the alleged agreement executed by the appellant will result into "transfer" of property as defined under section 2(47) of the Income tax Act read with section

2

K P MUHAMMED ALI,CALICUT vs. ITO ( INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), KOZHIKODE

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

ITA 1008/COCH/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Manomohan Dask.P. Muhammed Ali Income Tax Officer K.P. House: 19/1866 (International Taxation) Chalappuram Vs. Kozhikode Calicut 673002 [Pan:Agnpm9397F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Raghunathan Palakkal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 2(47)(vi)Section 53A

capital gain liable to be taxed for the current year. No dispute in this regard stands raised before us and, accordingly, not responded to by the other side. So, however, the assessee having raised a specific ground in this respect, which was not specifically stated as not pressed, we consider it incumbent on us to opine there-upon

THOMAS CHERIAN,THANE vs. DCIT CIRCLE INTL. TXN, DCIT CIRCLE INTL. TXN

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

ITA 776/COCH/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2021-22 Thomas Cherian .......... Appellant A-2, Happy House, Sector A9, Navi Mumbai Vashi, Thane 400703 [Pan: Apjpc6676G] Vs. Dcit (International Taxation) .......... Respondent Thiruvananthapuram Appellant By: Shri Vardhaman Jain, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Veni Raj, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2025

For Appellant: Shri Vardhaman Jain, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Veni Raj, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(14)(iii)Section 50CSection 53C

section 50C of the Act rejecting the contention of the appellant that it is agricultural land for want of proof of agricultural activities by the appellant. On receipt of the draft assessment order, objections were filed before the DRP contending that the property sold is agricultural land which is situated in rural area and earmarked as Jirayt land since

SARAMMA MATHEW , ERNAKULAM ( PRESENTLY STAYING AT USA) vs. DCIT, CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, KOCHI, KOCHI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 669/COCH/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2018-19 Smt. Saramma Mathew The Deputy Commissioner Of 5235 Margaret’S Place V. Income-Tax Brent Wood 370270 Usa (International Taxation) Pan :Domps1759R. Kochi. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rajakannan, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.08.2024

For Appellant: Shri Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 50CSection 50C(2)(b)Section 55A

1) dated 31.03.2022 in proceedings u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144(C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. It emerges at the outset that both the lower authorities have added the long terms capital gain amounting to Rs,128,67,944/- in assessee’s hands, vide assessment herein dated 31.03.2022 framed

SUJA MARIAMMA GEORGE ,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE INTL.TXN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes and the stay applications are dismissed

ITA 123/COCH/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.Veni Raj, CIT-DR

capital gains by adopting the value of the land as applicable for stamp duty purposes. In support of the contention, the assessee has also filed valuation report of the Registered Valuer. However, the DRP could not find any force in the arguments of the assessee and affirmed the draft order. Thereafter the AO passed the final assessment year. 5. Aggrieved

THOMAS GEORGE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE INTL.TXN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes and the stay applications are dismissed

ITA 124/COCH/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.Veni Raj, CIT-DR

capital gains by adopting the value of the land as applicable for stamp duty purposes. In support of the contention, the assessee has also filed valuation report of the Registered Valuer. However, the DRP could not find any force in the arguments of the assessee and affirmed the draft order. Thereafter the AO passed the final assessment year. 5. Aggrieved