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.

125 results for “capital gains”+ Section 149(1)(b)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai596Delhi544Bangalore344Jaipur197Ahmedabad183Chennai172Karnataka125Hyderabad124Cochin106Kolkata105Chandigarh103Pune67Indore55Calcutta54Raipur50Guwahati45Surat42Nagpur30Lucknow27Visakhapatnam23Amritsar16Cuttack10SC8Jodhpur7Agra7Rajkot7Telangana7Kerala5Rajasthan4Ranchi2Varanasi2Gauhati1Andhra Pradesh1Allahabad1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1

Key Topics

Section 26042Section 260A10Section 54F5Section 153C4Section 143(3)4Section 1444Section 444Section 104Disallowance3Capital Gains

AZIM PREMJI TRUSTEE COMPANY PVT LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, I pass the following:-

WP/15910/2022HC Karnataka28 Oct 2022

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

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148ASection 56(2)

Section 149(1)(b) [after amendment] by the respondents in order to contend that the notice dated 30.06.2021 was within the prescribed period of limitation. 18. A perusal of the material on record also indicates that apart from the various facts and circumstances that were taken into account by this Court in W.P.No.8059/2021 in relation to the previous assessment

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT. G. LAKSHMI ARUNA

ITA/705/2018HC Karnataka

Showing 1–20 of 125 · Page 1 of 7

2
31 Mar 2023

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153CSection 153DSection 260A

capital gains earned thereon had not been declared for tax. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.5,25,000/- was brought to tax. 15. Further at paragraph 8 of the order relating to bogus transportation expenses claimed for the assessment years 2009- 10 and 2010-11, the assessing officer has brought on record that the appellant has claimed transportation expenses

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. GALI JANARDHANA REDDY

ITA/704/2018HC Karnataka31 Mar 2023

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 153CSection 153DSection 260A

capital gains earned thereon had not been declared for tax. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.5,25,000/- was brought to tax. 14.Further at paragraph 8 of the order relating to bogus transportation expenses claimed for the assessment years 2009- 10 and 2010-11, the assessing officer has brought on record that the appellant has claimed transportation expenses for the years

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

Section 145A of the Income- tax Act which was inserted with effect from assessment year 1999-2000. The said provision states that the valuation of stock should include the amount of any tax duty, cess or fee - 94 - actually paid or incurred to bring the goods to its present location and condition. The Department has followed a consistent stand

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

Section 145A of the Income- tax Act which was inserted with effect from assessment year 1999-2000. The said provision states that the valuation of stock should include the amount of any tax duty, cess or fee - 94 - actually paid or incurred to bring the goods to its present location and condition. The Department has followed a consistent stand

SMT. M R PRABHAVATHY vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WTA/1/2019HC Karnataka04 Mar 2020

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice K.Natarajan Election Petition No.1 Of 2019 Connected With Election Petition No.2 Of 2019

Section 81

gainful employment except his influence in political background of his grand father, father, uncle, whereas the respondent No.2 - A.Manju is a qualified law graduate and Ex-Minister and Ex-member of various organization was contested and succeeded against JDS. The BJP had expected the Hassan constituency to be the winning constituency. The respondent No.1 while filing his nomination

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT. LTD.,

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

ITA/402/2009HC Karnataka28 Apr 2016

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

Section 260

gains of business and profession and therefore, depreciation has to be allowed. That reference made to Section 24 of the Act by the counsel for the Revenue is incorrect. He, therefore, contended that the Tribunal has rightly granted the depreciation on elevators also. - 18 - 15. We have considered the aforesaid submissions in light of the lease agreement dated 11/8/2003, which

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT. LTD.,

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

ITA/403/2009HC Karnataka28 Apr 2016

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

Section 260

gains of business and profession and therefore, depreciation has to be allowed. That reference made to Section 24 of the Act by the counsel for the Revenue is incorrect. He, therefore, contended that the Tribunal has rightly granted the depreciation on elevators also. - 18 - 15. We have considered the aforesaid submissions in light of the lease agreement dated 11/8/2003, which

THE COMMISIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT LTD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

ITA/402/2014HC Karnataka28 Apr 2016

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

Section 260

gains of business and profession and therefore, depreciation has to be allowed. That reference made to Section 24 of the Act by the counsel for the Revenue is incorrect. He, therefore, contended that the Tribunal has rightly granted the depreciation on elevators also. - 18 - 15. We have considered the aforesaid submissions in light of the lease agreement dated 11/8/2003, which

M/S FIDELITY BUSINESS SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

ITA/512/2017HC Karnataka23 Jul 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 2(22)(e)Section 254Section 260

gains arising to such shareholder or the holder of other specified securities, as the case may be, in the year in which such shares or other specified securities were purchased by the company. Explanation: For the purposes of this section, “specified securities” shall have the meaning assigned to it in Explanation to section 77A of the Companies Act, 1956 (1

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

ITA/100091/2016HC Karnataka17 Mar 2023

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 37

149 (Ori), whereinthe Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down the following tests to determine whether a substantial question of law is involved. The tests are as under: (1) whether directly or indirectly it affects substantial rights of the parties, or, (2) the question is of general public importance, or, (3) whether it is an open question in the sense that

SATISH N vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/30917/2016HC Karnataka10 Nov 2016

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Raghvendra S. Chauhan

Section 93 of the Act, namely "a canvasser…solicits the customer for such vehicle (public service vehicle) ”. Therefore, an aggregator is covered under Section 93 of the Act. 53. Of course, Mr. Sajan Poovayya, the learned Senior counsel, has argued that an aggregator does not go on to the road to solicit customers. But in the Digital Age, the internet

MR.M.GEORGE JOSEPH vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOMET TAX OFFICER

In the result, order of the

ITA/238/2015HC Karnataka12 Jul 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 260Section 260ASection 54Section 54F

149 6 (SC) and decisions in 'CIT VS. SMT. BRINDA KUMARI', (2002) 253 ITR 343 (DEL.), 'CIT VS. MRS. HILLA J.B.WADIA', (1995) 216 ITR 376 (BOM.), 'CIT VS. SAMBANDAM UDAYKUMR', (2012) 345 ITR 389 and 'CIT VS. SADARMAL KOTHARI', (2008) 302 ITR 286 (MAD.). 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue submitted that all the authorities under

DR SHARATH B RAJU vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/46335/2018HC Karnataka21 Dec 2018

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Krishna S.Dixit

149. DR. NISARGA T J AGED 26 YEARS W/O. MOHAN B, R/AT NO. 56, 1ST CROSS, SECOND STAGE, NIVEDITHA NAGAR, MYSORE 570022 150. DR. DEEPTHI APANNA D/O. H N APPANNA, AGED 28 YEARS NO. 531, 3RD MAIN, SUBRAMANAYPURA POST, AGS LAYOUT, BANGALORE 560061 151. DR. ANIL KUMAR S/O. GIRIDHAR KAMBLE, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/AT HOUSE NO. 8-79, NEAR

DR ARJUN KALASAPUR vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/45738/2018HC Karnataka21 Dec 2018

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Krishna S.Dixit

149. DR. NISARGA T J AGED 26 YEARS W/O. MOHAN B, R/AT NO. 56, 1ST CROSS, SECOND STAGE, NIVEDITHA NAGAR, MYSORE 570022 150. DR. DEEPTHI APANNA D/O. H N APPANNA, AGED 28 YEARS NO. 531, 3RD MAIN, SUBRAMANAYPURA POST, AGS LAYOUT, BANGALORE 560061 151. DR. ANIL KUMAR S/O. GIRIDHAR KAMBLE, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/AT HOUSE NO. 8-79, NEAR

DR. MADHAVA. M. vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/52140/2018HC Karnataka21 Dec 2018

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Krishna S.Dixit

149. DR. NISARGA T J AGED 26 YEARS W/O. MOHAN B, R/AT NO. 56, 1ST CROSS, SECOND STAGE, NIVEDITHA NAGAR, MYSORE 570022 150. DR. DEEPTHI APANNA D/O. H N APPANNA, AGED 28 YEARS NO. 531, 3RD MAIN, SUBRAMANAYPURA POST, AGS LAYOUT, BANGALORE 560061 151. DR. ANIL KUMAR S/O. GIRIDHAR KAMBLE, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/AT HOUSE NO. 8-79, NEAR

DR SWAMY MANJUNATH S T vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/46917/2018HC Karnataka21 Dec 2018

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Krishna S.Dixit

149. DR. NISARGA T J AGED 26 YEARS W/O. MOHAN B, R/AT NO. 56, 1ST CROSS, SECOND STAGE, NIVEDITHA NAGAR, MYSORE 570022 150. DR. DEEPTHI APANNA D/O. H N APPANNA, AGED 28 YEARS NO. 531, 3RD MAIN, SUBRAMANAYPURA POST, AGS LAYOUT, BANGALORE 560061 151. DR. ANIL KUMAR S/O. GIRIDHAR KAMBLE, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/AT HOUSE NO. 8-79, NEAR

DR PRESTEENA MATHEW vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/47256/2018HC Karnataka21 Dec 2018

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Krishna S.Dixit

149. DR. NISARGA T J AGED 26 YEARS W/O. MOHAN B, R/AT NO. 56, 1ST CROSS, SECOND STAGE, NIVEDITHA NAGAR, MYSORE 570022 150. DR. DEEPTHI APANNA D/O. H N APPANNA, AGED 28 YEARS NO. 531, 3RD MAIN, SUBRAMANAYPURA POST, AGS LAYOUT, BANGALORE 560061 151. DR. ANIL KUMAR S/O. GIRIDHAR KAMBLE, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/AT HOUSE NO. 8-79, NEAR

SRI. GURUPRASAD vs. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA

WP/8176/2019HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

1 . THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA M.S. BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001. 2 . SRI. SRINGERI MUTT VIDABHINAVA NARASIMHA BHARATI SWAMI GURU SACHIDANANDA SHANKAR BHARATI SWAMIGALU, KUDLI SHIVAMOGGA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA - 577 227. 3 . THE TAHASILDHAR HIREKERUR TALUK HAVERI - 581 111. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRABHULING K NAVADAGI, AG A/W SRI. V. SREENIDHI, AGA AND SMT. KAVITHA H.C, HCGP

P. D. PONNAPPA vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/12975/2019HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

1 . THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA M.S. BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001. 2 . SRI. SRINGERI MUTT VIDABHINAVA NARASIMHA BHARATI SWAMI GURU SACHIDANANDA SHANKAR BHARATI SWAMIGALU, KUDLI SHIVAMOGGA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA - 577 227. 3 . THE TAHASILDHAR HIREKERUR TALUK HAVERI - 581 111. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRABHULING K NAVADAGI, AG A/W SRI. V. SREENIDHI, AGA AND SMT. KAVITHA H.C, HCGP