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.

73 results for “capital gains”+ Section 11clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai5,617Delhi4,583Bangalore2,005Chennai1,647Kolkata1,160Ahmedabad865Jaipur699Hyderabad684Pune511Chandigarh314Indore292Surat171Raipur162Cochin154Nagpur146Rajkot130Visakhapatnam121Lucknow110SC90Amritsar77Karnataka73Panaji64Dehradun48Cuttack47Guwahati45Patna43Calcutta43Ranchi37Jodhpur36Agra36Kerala21Jabalpur17Allahabad17Telangana15Punjab & Haryana9Orissa8Rajasthan8Varanasi7Gauhati2Andhra Pradesh2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1Himachal Pradesh1ANIL R. DAVE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1

Key Topics

Section 260133Section 260A43Section 143(3)21Addition to Income20Capital Gains19Deduction16Section 54F15Section 143(2)14Section 14814

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

11. The judicial pronouncement on the aspect of slump sale would indicate that the said slump sale would not be taxable neither as business income under Section 41[2] nor under Section 45 of the Act. In the case B.C.Srinivasa Setty Supra, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the charging section and computation section are integrated code

Showing 1–20 of 73 · Page 1 of 4

Disallowance14
Section 14711
Section 158B11

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 53 of the TP Act in the context of capital gains under the Income Tax Act, it has been held thus: “11

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 Tax Act, 1922 and not Section 24(2) of the Act, which is akin to Section 72 of the Act. It is further submitted that the aforesaid decision

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

11. Section 54F is beneficial legislation. Deduction on capital gains is given when a person invests money to purchase a residential

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 gain realized from the transfer of FCBBs or shares to a resident would be liable to tax in India at 10 percent. 16. In light of the amendment to section 115AC of the Act, clause (x) of Section 47 was amended simultaneously to include "bonds" to address the taxability 11

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-1 vs. M/S RASHTREEYA SIKSHANA SAMITHI TRUST

In the result grounds 3 to 5 of assessee

ITA/554/2018HC Karnataka05 Jun 2023

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA

Section 11Section 12ASection 260

gain and all the funds are ploughed back only into education. Thus accumulations and application are as per the provisions of section 11. Therefore, exemption under section 11 and 12 has to be allowed to the assessee. We hold that the assessee is entitled to exemption u/s.11 and 12 of the Act. In the result grounds

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 260

11 acres 08.02.2008 MR Padmavathy Trust 9 acres 32 guntas 08.02.2008 3. Assessees filed returns of income for A.Y.1 2008-09 under Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short) and revised returns excluding 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 260

11 acres 08.02.2008 MR Padmavathy Trust 9 acres 32 guntas 08.02.2008 3. Assessees filed returns of income for A.Y.1 2008-09 under Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short) and revised returns excluding 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 260

11 acres 08.02.2008 MR Padmavathy Trust 9 acres 32 guntas 08.02.2008 3. Assessees filed returns of income for A.Y.1 2008-09 under Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short) and revised returns excluding 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 260

11 acres 08.02.2008 MR Padmavathy Trust 9 acres 32 guntas 08.02.2008 3. Assessees filed returns of income for A.Y.1 2008-09 under Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short) and revised returns excluding 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 260

11 acres 08.02.2008 MR Padmavathy Trust 9 acres 32 guntas 08.02.2008 3. Assessees filed returns of income for A.Y.1 2008-09 under Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short) and revised returns excluding 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 260

11 acres 08.02.2008 MR Padmavathy Trust 9 acres 32 guntas 08.02.2008 3. Assessees filed returns of income for A.Y.1 2008-09 under Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short) and revised returns excluding 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

capital gains were indeed offered to tax in the said subsequent assessment years. However, the Assessing Officer, the CIT(A), and the Tribunal proceeded to hold that a transfer had taken place in the Assessment Year 2005–06 by applying the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7442-DB ITA No. 637 of 2016 judgment of this Court

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MEDICAL RELIEF SOCIETY OF

Appeal is dismissed by

ITA/179/2021HC Karnataka25 Mar 2024

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,C.M. POONACHA

Section 11Section 260

Section 11 (1A) (b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961"? 2. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in upholding the decision of the appellate authority that long term capital gains

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)

11 Section 45A of the IT Act is applicable where any person receives any Capital Asset from a specified entity in connection was the reconstitution of such specified entity. It is not the case of the Revenue that there was reconstitution of the Firm. On the other hand, the assets of the Firm have been sold to the Private Limited

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

M/S SITARAM JINDAL FOUNDATION vs. THE ADDL. DIRECTOR OF

Appeal is allowed

ITA/744/2018HC Karnataka10 Feb 2023

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA

Section 11Section 11(5)Section 260Section 43(5)

capital gain accrues on such transfer, are to be treated as income for purposes of computation Section 11 of the Act? iii. Whether

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. Even the other ground of challenge inasmuch as the Tribunal remitting the matter to the Assessing officer with

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

11,65,105/- under proviso to clause (i) of Explanation 1 to section 115JB(2), on the facts and circumstances of the case? (iv) Without prejudice, whether the Tribunal in law failed to appreciate that the appellant had added back the provision for bad and doubtful debts for certain years and hence ought to have granted the deduction in respect

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

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