Search: capital gains | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

71 results for “capital gains”+ Section 10clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai6,104 Delhi4,953 Bangalore2,107 Chennai1,892 Kolkata1,328 Ahmedabad958 Jaipur730 Hyderabad711 Pune571 Chandigarh346 Indore310 Surat206 Cochin178 Raipur172 Nagpur155 Rajkot138 Lucknow134 Visakhapatnam128 Amritsar96 SC95 Karnataka71 Panaji65 Patna62 Calcutta59 Cuttack53 Guwahati52 Agra51 Dehradun51 Ranchi47 Jodhpur44 Kerala22 Allahabad21 Jabalpur21 Telangana16 Varanasi10 Punjab & Haryana9 Rajasthan8 Orissa7 Gauhati2 Andhra Pradesh2 A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2 MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1 ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1 K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1 A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1 D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1 Himachal Pradesh1 ANIL R. DAVE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1

Key Topics

Section 260129 Section 260A42 Section 143(3)21 Section 14821 Addition to Income21 Capital Gains19 Section 14718 Section 54F15 Section 143(2)14

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. ABB LTD

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

ITA/568/2015HC Karnataka04 Oct 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 143Section 2(24)Section 220Section 220(2)Section 254Section 260Section 260ASection 45

capital gains. The provisions of Section 56 read with Section 10[3] are quite apposite. Entire sale consideration not allocable

Showing 1–20 of 71 · Page 1 of 4

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT SAROJINI M KUSHE

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA/475/2016HC Karnataka01 Dec 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

Section 260Section 260ASection 48Section 50CSection 50D

Section 48 would indicate that the income chargeable under the head capital gains shall be computed by deducting the following amounts from the full value of consideration received or accrued as a result of the transfer of the capital asset. [1] expenditure incurred wholly or exclusively in connection with such transfer [2] cost of - 10

M/S NANDI STEELS LIMITED vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the findings

ITA/103/2012HC Karnataka23 Feb 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 260Section 260ASection 6

capital gains income was in fact business income. It is also pointed out that the subject matter in question in EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS supra was Section 26(2) of the Income 10

THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIT (A) vs. SHRI J KRISHNA PALEMAR

Appeal is allowed;

ITA/546/2018HC Karnataka06 Feb 2023

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR

Section 260Section 54F

10. Section 54F of the Act reads as follows; “54F. Capital gain on transfer of certain. capital assets not to be charged

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. INTEL CAPITAL (CAYMAN) CORPORATION

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby

ITA/385/2013HC Karnataka06 Oct 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 115ASection 143(3)Section 144CSection 260Section 260ASection 47

capital gains. It is also pertinent to mention here that Clause (xa) of Section 47, which refers to transfer by way of conversion of 10

M/S KARNATAKA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is disposed of

ITA/183/2017HC Karnataka08 Jun 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.I.ARUN

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 260

capital gains under Section 10(38) of the Act, under Section 115JB of the Act. The assessee as well as the revenue

SMT JOSHNA RAJENDRA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Accordingly, it stands dismissed

ITA/8/2018HC Karnataka04 Dec 2019

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

Section 143(1)(a)Section 147Section 148Section 260Section 50C

capital gains had escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Act. -: 6 :- 7. Though Mr.Ashok Kulkarni, learned advocate appearing for appellant-assessee has made valiant attempt to contend that Tribunal erred in considering the cross-objection filed before Tribunal on the ground after having observed that there was no direction to the Assessing Officer and as such

M/S. EVERGREEN HARDWARE STORES vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF

Appeal is allowed

ITA/201/2017HC Karnataka02 Dec 2022

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 260Section 45(4)

capital gains on the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that an amount of Rs.1,47,79,298/- is to be taken as deemed profit on transfer of stock and consequently passed a perverse order on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. Whether the Tribunal was justified

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M.R.ANANDARAM

Appeals are dismissed

ITA/176/2015HC Karnataka22 Jul 2022

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,C.M. POONACHA

Section 143(3) of the Act and 1 Assessment Year I.T.A Nos.176/2015, 520/2014, 175/2015, 177/2015, 178/2015, 179/2015, 298/2015 10 added taxes against each assessee, as shown herein below, on the ground that the lands sold by them are capital assets and the capital gains

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M.R.PRABHAVATHY

Appeals are dismissed

ITA/177/2015HC Karnataka22 Jul 2022

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,C.M. POONACHA

Section 143(3) of the Act and 1 Assessment Year I.T.A Nos.176/2015, 520/2014, 175/2015, 177/2015, 178/2015, 179/2015, 298/2015 10 added taxes against each assessee, as shown herein below, on the ground that the lands sold by them are capital assets and the capital gains

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. M.R.PADMAVATHY TRUST

Appeals are dismissed

ITA/298/2015HC Karnataka22 Jul 2022

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,C.M. POONACHA

Section 143(3) of the Act and 1 Assessment Year I.T.A Nos.176/2015, 520/2014, 175/2015, 177/2015, 178/2015, 179/2015, 298/2015 10 added taxes against each assessee, as shown herein below, on the ground that the lands sold by them are capital assets and the capital gains

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M.R.PATTABHIRAM

Appeals are dismissed

ITA/179/2015HC Karnataka22 Jul 2022

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,C.M. POONACHA

Section 143(3) of the Act and 1 Assessment Year I.T.A Nos.176/2015, 520/2014, 175/2015, 177/2015, 178/2015, 179/2015, 298/2015 10 added taxes against each assessee, as shown herein below, on the ground that the lands sold by them are capital assets and the capital gains

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SHRI. M.R. SEETHARAM

Appeals are dismissed

ITA/520/2014HC Karnataka22 Jul 2022

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,C.M. POONACHA

Section 143(3) of the Act and 1 Assessment Year I.T.A Nos.176/2015, 520/2014, 175/2015, 177/2015, 178/2015, 179/2015, 298/2015 10 added taxes against each assessee, as shown herein below, on the ground that the lands sold by them are capital assets and the capital gains

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M.R.KODANDARAM

Appeals are dismissed

ITA/175/2015HC Karnataka22 Jul 2022

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,C.M. POONACHA

Section 143(3) of the Act and 1 Assessment Year I.T.A Nos.176/2015, 520/2014, 175/2015, 177/2015, 178/2015, 179/2015, 298/2015 10 added taxes against each assessee, as shown herein below, on the ground that the lands sold by them are capital assets and the capital gains

SHRI N G CHANDRA REDDY (HUF) vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

The appeal is disposed of in the above terms

ITA/637/2016HC Karnataka05 Feb 2026

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,K. V. ARAVIND

Section 148Section 2(47)Section 2(47)(v)Section 234ASection 260Section 53A

Section 2(47)(v) of the IT Act. 7.1 It is further stated that upon transfer of the flats to the developer or its nominee, the assessee offered the income to capital gains tax in the subsequent Assessment Years 2007– 08 and 2008–09. The material on record indicates that capital gains were indeed offered to tax in the said

SRI B V S MURTHY vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

The appeal is disposed of

ITA/397/2010HC Karnataka19 Feb 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 147Section 148Section 17(2)(iii)Section 260Section 260A

10 appellant are capital gains; therefore, the fourth substantial question of law is rendered academic. 8. In view of preceding analysis, the impugned order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 28.06.2010 is hereby quashed. Since, the tribunal in view of the finding recorded by it that gains received on sale of shares is a perquisite, has not dealt

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI BHARAT R GAJRIA

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA/68/2015HC Karnataka06 Dec 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 260Section 260ASection 40

Section 40[a][ia] of the Act by the Assessing Officer cannot be sustained in view of the income from the sale of property under consideration is now held to be taxed as capital gains and not as income from business. 10

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S SYNDICATE BANK

The appeals are disposed of

ITA/256/2011HC Karnataka24 Jan 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 260Section 260ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

capital gains. Notices under Section 143(2) / 142(1) of the Act were issued to the Assessee an order under Section 143(3) of the Act was passed on 28.02.2005 disallowing an amount of Rs.192,53,21,426/- on reversal of interest pertaining to earlier years as deduction out of current years income and added back to interest on zero

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 vs. M/S JEANS KNIT PVT LTD

In the result, we do not find any

ITA/580/2016HC Karnataka19 Oct 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 10Section 260Section 260A

capital gain earned. It is urged that since, the tribunal has failed to determine the core issue with regard to colorable devise adopted by the 15 assessee, to evade tax, therefore, the matter be remitted to the tribunal for decision afresh in accordance with law. In support of aforesaid submissions, the reliance is placed on decision of Supreme Court

M/S EMBASSY BRINDAVAN DEVELOPERS vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is allowed

ITA/713/2017HC Karnataka13 Sept 2022

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Section 260Section 263

capital gains tax. Adverting to Explanation 2(a) of Section 263 of the Act, he contended that jurisdiction under Section 263 could be invoked only in such cases where the order is passed without making inquiries or verification. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd.1, CIT and another Vs. M/s. Cyber Park Development