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.

110 results for “capital gains”+ Section 206clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai474 Delhi369 Chennai159 Jaipur130 Ahmedabad128 Bangalore123 Karnataka110 Kolkata78 Chandigarh62 Calcutta51 Hyderabad51 Raipur33 Pune24 Rajkot22 Cochin22 Indore20 Nagpur17 Guwahati16 Surat14 Lucknow12 Visakhapatnam12 Agra9 Telangana8 SC6 Varanasi6 Amritsar5 Ranchi5 Cuttack4 Rajasthan3 Jodhpur3 Allahabad1 Andhra Pradesh1 Panaji1

Key Topics

Section 26011 Section 260A4 Section 54F4 Capital Gains4 Section 2633 Section 54(1)2 Section 54(2)2 Section 80C2 Section 812 Addition to Income

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. LATE KHOOBCHAND M MAKHIJA

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/496/2007HC Karnataka18 Dec 2013

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 148Section 260Section 54(1)Section 54(2)

206/- remained as unutilized capital gain. In terms of Section 54(2) of the Act, the said amount was offered

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MRS. VANAJA MATTHEN

The appeal is dismissed

Showing 1–20 of 110 · Page 1 of 6

2

ITA/456/2017

HC Karnataka

30 Oct 2018

Bench: This Court, Questioning The Order Dated 25.01.2017 In

Section 260ASection 54F

capital gain is allowable to investment made in residential building and not investment made on land. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing ITA.No.456/2017 - 4 - Officer, the respondent-assessee filed appeal in ITA No.968/R- 8/CIT(A)–V/2011-12 before the Appellate Authority. 3. The Appellate Authority, on appreciation of material on record accepted the contentions of the assessee and observed

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. SMT. B. SUMANGALADEVI,

Appeal is allowed

ITA/5049/2010HC Karnataka27 Jun 2012

Bench: K.BHAKTHAVATSALA,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 132BSection 260A

capital gains and it has to be assessed in her hands, but directed the Assessing Officer to give credit of `10,00,000/- seized in the hands of B.B.Swamy to the assessee as against her tax liability. Hence, the Assessing Officer filed an application before the C.I.T (Appeals) seeking withdrawal of the direction in so far as giving credit

K R SATYANARAYANA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders passed by the Commissioner of

ITA/192/2015HC Karnataka21 Dec 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 143(2)Section 154Section 260Section 260ASection 263Section 50CSection 80C

capital gains to disallow interest on loan of purchase of property as deduction from sale consideration, to direct the Assessing Officer to adopt guidance value of sub registrar in respect of one property as deemed sale value and to bring to tax the difference and to allow deduction under Section 80C of the Act for an amount of Rs.1

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

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

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

SRI B V ACHARYA S/O LATE RAMACHANDRA ACHARYA vs. SRI N VENKATESHAIAH

WP/14047/2012HC Karnataka03 Aug 2012

Bench: V.JAGANNATHAN

Section 156(3)Section 482

capitation fee issue is concerned, the 18 submission made is that the writ petition filed in this regard by the students came to be dismissed by this court. Therefore, none of the offences alleged in the complaint can be said to have been, even remotely, made out against the petitioner and thus, it is clear that the entire complaint

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (4) vs. M/S CHAMUNDI WINERY AND DISTILLERY

ITA/172/2017HC Karnataka25 Sept 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

gains from the said business of manufacture and sale of liquor by M/S. CHAMUNDI WINERY AND DISTILLERY was not assessable in its hands ? [iii] Whether the method of Accounting or entries made in the Books of Accounts by the Respondent Assessee or maintaining the Bank Accounts under the close control and supervision of DIAGEO INDIA PRIVATE Date of Judgment

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CHAMUNDI WINERY AND DISTILLERY

ITA/467/2015HC Karnataka25 Sept 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

gains from the said business of manufacture and sale of liquor by M/S. CHAMUNDI WINERY AND DISTILLERY was not assessable in its hands ? [iii] Whether the method of Accounting or entries made in the Books of Accounts by the Respondent Assessee or maintaining the Bank Accounts under the close control and supervision of DIAGEO INDIA PRIVATE Date of Judgment

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

MASTER BALACHANDAR KRISHNAN vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/8788/2020HC Karnataka29 Sept 2020

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 8 of the Act provides for the authorities of the School which are five in number. Section 18 of the Act which deals with authorities and Officers of the School etc., states that the authorities of the School and their composition, powers, functions and other matters relating to them, the officers of the School and their appointment, powers, functions

P. D. PONNAPPA vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/12975/2019HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

SECTIONS 2, 7, 11, 20 OF THE KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING AND PROHIBITION ACT OF 2011 AS VOID, ARBITRARY, UNJUST AS THEY ARE VIOLATIVE OF PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. IN W.P. NO.22817/2018: BETWEEN: SRI. MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA R/AT H. THIMMAPURA VILLAGE 122 BELENHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 228. ...PETITIONER

SRI. GURUPRASAD vs. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA

WP/8176/2019HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

SECTIONS 2, 7, 11, 20 OF THE KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING AND PROHIBITION ACT OF 2011 AS VOID, ARBITRARY, UNJUST AS THEY ARE VIOLATIVE OF PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. IN W.P. NO.22817/2018: BETWEEN: SRI. MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA R/AT H. THIMMAPURA VILLAGE 122 BELENHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 228. ...PETITIONER

S B JAGADEESH vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/51160/2017HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

SECTIONS 2, 7, 11, 20 OF THE KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING AND PROHIBITION ACT OF 2011 AS VOID, ARBITRARY, UNJUST AS THEY ARE VIOLATIVE OF PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. IN W.P. NO.22817/2018: BETWEEN: SRI. MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA R/AT H. THIMMAPURA VILLAGE 122 BELENHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 228. ...PETITIONER

RAJAPPA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/50955/2019HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

SECTIONS 2, 7, 11, 20 OF THE KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING AND PROHIBITION ACT OF 2011 AS VOID, ARBITRARY, UNJUST AS THEY ARE VIOLATIVE OF PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. IN W.P. NO.22817/2018: BETWEEN: SRI. MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA R/AT H. THIMMAPURA VILLAGE 122 BELENHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 228. ...PETITIONER

SMT. V.KRISHNAMMA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/36324/2017HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

SECTIONS 2, 7, 11, 20 OF THE KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING AND PROHIBITION ACT OF 2011 AS VOID, ARBITRARY, UNJUST AS THEY ARE VIOLATIVE OF PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. IN W.P. NO.22817/2018: BETWEEN: SRI. MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA R/AT H. THIMMAPURA VILLAGE 122 BELENHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 228. ...PETITIONER

SRI SANTOSH A SHETTY vs. THE STATE OF KARANTAKA

WP/29668/2019HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

SECTIONS 2, 7, 11, 20 OF THE KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING AND PROHIBITION ACT OF 2011 AS VOID, ARBITRARY, UNJUST AS THEY ARE VIOLATIVE OF PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. IN W.P. NO.22817/2018: BETWEEN: SRI. MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA R/AT H. THIMMAPURA VILLAGE 122 BELENHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 228. ...PETITIONER

MR C V MANJUNATHA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/235/2018HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

SECTIONS 2, 7, 11, 20 OF THE KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING AND PROHIBITION ACT OF 2011 AS VOID, ARBITRARY, UNJUST AS THEY ARE VIOLATIVE OF PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. IN W.P. NO.22817/2018: BETWEEN: SRI. MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA R/AT H. THIMMAPURA VILLAGE 122 BELENHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 228. ...PETITIONER

RAMA vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/27625/2019HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

SECTIONS 2, 7, 11, 20 OF THE KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING AND PROHIBITION ACT OF 2011 AS VOID, ARBITRARY, UNJUST AS THEY ARE VIOLATIVE OF PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. IN W.P. NO.22817/2018: BETWEEN: SRI. MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA R/AT H. THIMMAPURA VILLAGE 122 BELENHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 228. ...PETITIONER

BORALINGAIAH vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/33339/2018HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

SECTIONS 2, 7, 11, 20 OF THE KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING AND PROHIBITION ACT OF 2011 AS VOID, ARBITRARY, UNJUST AS THEY ARE VIOLATIVE OF PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. IN W.P. NO.22817/2018: BETWEEN: SRI. MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA R/AT H. THIMMAPURA VILLAGE 122 BELENHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 228. ...PETITIONER