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.

269 results for “capital gains”+ Section 10(26)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai3,529Delhi2,948Bangalore1,357Chennai960Ahmedabad754Kolkata716Jaipur645Hyderabad517Pune383Surat340Chandigarh333Indore282Karnataka269Cochin205Raipur166Visakhapatnam166Nagpur109Rajkot96Agra87Cuttack83Guwahati74Lucknow73Amritsar73SC63Calcutta58Panaji52Telangana47Jodhpur20Ranchi19Dehradun19Allahabad16Patna15Jabalpur12Varanasi10Kerala9Rajasthan6Orissa3A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2Andhra Pradesh2ANIL R. DAVE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1Punjab & Haryana1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1

Key Topics

Section 260156Section 8056Section 260A35Deduction27Section 143(3)17Section 214Section 5613Section 115J12Section 45(2)12Capital Gains

SRI. P S SESHADRI. vs. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, this petition is allowed in part

WP/42424/2012HC Karnataka02 Jul 2013

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice Ram Mohan Reddy

Section 119(2)(c)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234Section 234ASection 54E

10. Applying the aforesaid statutory provisions and the notifications to the facts of the case, petitioner having sold a long term capital asset on 16.3.2006 for a sale consideration of Rs.1,99,00,000/- from out of which Rs.1,82,00,000/- was the capital gain, was entitled to make an investment of the entire sum of Capital Gain

Showing 1–20 of 269 · Page 1 of 14

...
12
Addition to Income11
Exemption7

THE COMMR OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S DYNAMIC ENTERPRISE

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA/1414/2006HC Karnataka16 Sept 2013

Bench: This Bench.

Section 148Section 2(47)Section 45(4)

Section 45(4) of the Act, which is not the case on hand. 10. It is in this background we have to notice the conflicting judgments of this Court, which resulted in this reference and resolve the conflict. CONFLICTING JUDGMENTS 11. Before the Division Bench reliance was placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Commissioner

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S PRAKASH ELECTRIC COMPANY

ITA/884/2007HC Karnataka23 Jul 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 260Section 47Section 47A

10. The provision of Section 47A relevant for the present controversy are also quoted below for ready reference:66 [Withdrawal of exemption in certain cases. 47A. [(1) Where at any time before the expiry of a period of eight years from the date of the transfer of a capital asset referred to in clause (iv) or, as the case

KIDS CLINIC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

COP/60/2015HC Karnataka21 Aug 2015

Bench: KRISHNA S DIXIT

Section 260Section 47Section 47A

10. The provision of Section 47A relevant for the present controversy are also quoted below for ready reference:66 [Withdrawal of exemption in certain cases. 47A. [(1) Where at any time before the expiry of a period of eight years from the date of the transfer of a capital asset referred to in clause (iv) or, as the case

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, in view of B.C.Srinivasa Setty supra, the Revenue has made an attempt to treat the technical know-how as goodwill in the second round. 15. This reasoning of the Tribunal cannot be faulted with, in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in B.C.Srinivasa Setty supra. The gain from transfer of business by implication

ANTONY PARAKAL KURIAN vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is allowed in part

ITA/254/2021HC Karnataka09 Dec 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S RACHAIAH

Section 260Section 260ASection 54Section 54F

Capital gains amounting to Rs.2,23,47,434/- was claimed as an exemption under Section 54 of the Act and Rs.25 Lakhs is claimed as an exemption for making investment in REC bonds under Section 54EC of the Act. The contention of the appellant 6 was that out of the advance amount of Rs.50 lakhs received from M/s. Fashion Jewellery

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S.WINTAC LTD.,

The appeal is allowed in part

ITA/910/2006HC Karnataka19 Sept 2013

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 260ASection 271(1)(c)

26,607/-. 4. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice under Section 143(2) was issued on 25-10-2002. The authorized representative of the assessee appeared on behalf of the assessee. On examination of income tax returns and other details furnished by the assessee- Company, it was noticed that the assessee-company 4 entered into an agreement

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

M/S BHORUKA ENGINEERING INDS. LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is allowed

ITA/120/2011HC Karnataka09 Apr 2013

Bench: B.MANOHAR,N.KUMAR

Section 260A

Section 10(38) of the Act and therefore he submits the order passed by the authorities are valid and legal and does not call for any interference. 12. From the material on record, it is clear the 30 acres of land in White Field belong to Bhoruka Steel Limited (BSL). It became a sick industrial company. Before BIFR, a scheme

PR COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX-6 vs. M R KODANDRAM

Appeals stand dismissed

WTA/11/2017HC Karnataka18 Oct 2019

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,ASHOK S.KINAGI

Section 260Section 260A

10. We have carefully considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record. 11. Section 45 of the Act reads thus: “Capital gains. 45. (1) Any profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset effected in the previous year shall, save as otherwise provided in sections

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ASSOCIATED ELECTRONIC AND ELCTRICAL

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA/358/2009HC Karnataka18 Dec 2015

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

Section 260Section 48Section 55Section 55(2)(a)

10. We have heard Sri. K.V. Aravind, learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue as well as Sri. A. Shankar, learned Counsel appearing for the Assessee and perused the material on record. 11. Section 45 of the Act is the charging section for ‘capital gains’. Section 45[1] of the Act reads as under: “45. Capital Gains: (1) Any profits

M/S WIPRO LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

ITA/881/2008HC Karnataka25 Mar 2015

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 260

26. The answer to the question depends on the interpretation to be placed on Section 90 which is found in Chapter IX which deals with Double Taxation Relief. 27. Section 90 deals with agreement with foreign countries or specified territories. The present Section came into force from 01.04.2004. Earlier to that period, Section 90 read as under: - 40 - “90. Agreement

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

ITA/211/2009HC Karnataka25 Mar 2015

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 260

26. The answer to the question depends on the interpretation to be placed on Section 90 which is found in Chapter IX which deals with Double Taxation Relief. 27. Section 90 deals with agreement with foreign countries or specified territories. The present Section came into force from 01.04.2004. Earlier to that period, Section 90 read as under: - 40 - “90. Agreement

SRI N GOVINDARAJU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal stands disposed of

ITA/504/2013HC Karnataka01 Jul 2015

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 45(2)

10 tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, or recomputed the loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. VIKRAM REDDY

In the result, the fifth substantial question of

ITA/291/2013HC Karnataka24 Feb 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

Section 260Section 260A

26,14,953/- was taxed under Section 45 read with Section 49(1) of the Act and Short Term Capital Gains was computed taking the actual cost for acquisition of sales at Rs.35.27 Crores instead of Rs.270,07,53,000/- as claimed by the B.V.R.E.P.L. 5. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S IND SING DEVELOPERS P LTD

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/541/2015HC Karnataka02 Mar 2016

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

Section 167BSection 2(31)Section 2(47)Section 260Section 3Section 4Section 67A

gains, as an essential object for forming an AOP. However the CBDT Circular explaining the above insertion states that such insertion was only to take care of the claim of certain bodies that they did not fall within the definition of a ‘person’ for the sole reason, that they were not supposed to have any income or profits. Section

L. VENKATARAMANA RAJU vs. UNION OF INDIA

WP/53718/2017HC Karnataka21 Apr 2022

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar

Section 96

10. Petitioners have contended that they are entitled to compensation under the said Act of 2013 and the impugned awards and the decisions taken by the respondents awarding compensation under the said Act of 1894 are illegal, arbitrary and deserve to be quashed and 17 that the respondents are to be directed to pass awards in favour of the petitioners

M/S SRI BALAJI CORPORATE SERVICES vs. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE

WP/43206/2018HC Karnataka21 Apr 2022

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar

Section 96

10. Petitioners have contended that they are entitled to compensation under the said Act of 2013 and the impugned awards and the decisions taken by the respondents awarding compensation under the said Act of 1894 are illegal, arbitrary and deserve to be quashed and 17 that the respondents are to be directed to pass awards in favour of the petitioners

R JANARDHANA BABU vs. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR

Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed

WP/37528/2010HC Karnataka07 Jul 2017

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice B. Veerappa

capital, but the workman should also be entitled to participate in it. 103 11. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners relied upon the following judgments with regard to “Transfer was malafide”: (i) The Judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of STANDARD CHARTERED BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI .vs. GRINDLAYS BANK EMPLOYEES UNION, MUMBAI AND ANOTHER reported

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GOKULA EDUCATION FOUNDATION

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/431/2013HC Karnataka22 Feb 2016

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

Section 260

gains of business or profession". Net receipt after deducting all the necessary expenditure of the trust (sic). 10. There is a broad agreement on this proposition. But still the contention for the Revenue is that the depreciation allowance being a notional income (expenditure ?) cannot be allowed to be debited to the expenditure account of the trust. This contention appears