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.

132 results for “section 68”+ Long Term Capital Gainsclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,161Delhi1,484Bangalore527Ahmedabad446Kolkata445Jaipur413Chennai379Hyderabad199Chandigarh175Indore150Pune142Karnataka132Cochin97Surat87Calcutta80Nagpur71Raipur61Lucknow55Rajkot48Guwahati48Cuttack47Visakhapatnam39Panaji31Amritsar20Jodhpur19SC16Ranchi14Agra14Telangana13Patna13Rajasthan7Allahabad7Jabalpur5Varanasi4Dehradun3Andhra Pradesh1Orissa1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 26066Section 14815Section 5412Section 260A9Section 143(2)9Section 1477Section 139(1)5Section 1535Revision u/s 2635Capital Gains

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)

68,30,330/-. But determined the tax payable under Section 115JB at Rs.38,26,607/-. 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

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

In the result, this petition is allowed in part

Showing 1–20 of 132 · Page 1 of 7

5
Long Term Capital Gains5
Exemption5
WP/42424/2012
HC Karnataka
02 Jul 2013

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

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

68 of 1988) during the financial year 2006-07 as “long-term specified asset” for the purpose of the said section.” “Notification No.S.O.964(E), dated 29th June 2006 In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-clause (ii) of clause (b) of the Explanation to section 54EC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), the Central Government hereby

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MRS SHAKUNTALA DEVI

Appeal is hereby dismissed

ITA/340/2009HC Karnataka28 Sept 2016

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

Section 147Section 148Section 260ASection 54

Section 148. Accordingly, assessment proceedings came to be framed. 3. Assessing officer has noticed that assessee had sold a flat at Mumbai on 04.02.2003 for a total consideration of `1,71,00,000/- and had worked out long-term capital gain of `1,44,68

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

Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.26,88,34,949/- under Section 54 of the Act in respect of an investment made in acquiring a new residential house property to the extent of Rs.88,98,970/-. The Assessing Officer held that 4 investment made by the assessee does not fall within purview of Section 54F of the Act and disallowed

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.MADHAVA, M/S BELLARY STEEL ROLING MILLS,

The appeals are allowed

ITA/5034/2009HC Karnataka13 Aug 2012

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

Section 139(1)Section 148Section 153Section 260

long-term capital loss of Rs.1,24,03,271/-. Consequently, he also set aside the order passed by the Assessing Authority insofar as the interest is concerned. Aggrieved by this order, the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has dealt with the respective issues as contended by the Assessing

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.MADHAVA (HUF)

The appeals are allowed

ITA/5036/2009HC Karnataka13 Aug 2012

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

Section 139(1)Section 148Section 153Section 260

long-term capital loss of Rs.1,24,03,271/-. Consequently, he also set aside the order passed by the Assessing Authority insofar as the interest is concerned. Aggrieved by this order, the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has dealt with the respective issues as contended by the Assessing

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.MADHAVA, M/S BELLARY STEEL ROLING MILLS,

The appeals are allowed

ITA/5035/2009HC Karnataka13 Aug 2012

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

Section 139(1)Section 148Section 153Section 260

long-term capital loss of Rs.1,24,03,271/-. Consequently, he also set aside the order passed by the Assessing Authority insofar as the interest is concerned. Aggrieved by this order, the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has dealt with the respective issues as contended by the Assessing

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.PARVATHI MADHAVA

The appeals are allowed

ITA/5037/2009HC Karnataka13 Aug 2012

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

Section 139(1)Section 148Section 153Section 260

long-term capital loss of Rs.1,24,03,271/-. Consequently, he also set aside the order passed by the Assessing Authority insofar as the interest is concerned. Aggrieved by this order, the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has dealt with the respective issues as contended by the Assessing

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.MADHAVA (HUF)

The appeals are allowed

ITA/5038/2009HC Karnataka13 Aug 2012

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

Section 139(1)Section 148Section 153Section 260

long-term capital loss of Rs.1,24,03,271/-. Consequently, he also set aside the order passed by the Assessing Authority insofar as the interest is concerned. Aggrieved by this order, the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has dealt with the respective issues as contended by the Assessing

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. M/S C RAMAIAH REDDY

In the result, we do not find any merit in the appeal

ITA/192/2012HC Karnataka24 Jun 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 260Section 260ASection 292BSection 45(2)

68,180/- as long term capital gains and a sum of Rs.61,32,800/- as short term capital gains by invoking Section

ARUN K THIAGARAJAN vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the order passed by the assessing officer and

ITA/25/2011HC Karnataka18 Jun 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

Section 148Section 260Section 260ASection 54

long term capital gain arising out of the sale of the above property of Rs.15,44,009/- after claiming deduction towards incidental charges for transfer of property, the cost of acquisition and the deduction admissible under Section 54 of the Act in respect of two properties purchased in Bangalore viz., Koramangala and Domlur, II Stage, Bangalore, respectively

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

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

68. What follows is, if the provisions contained in Section 90 is more beneficial to the assessee as compared to the - 85 - terms in the agreement by India with the Government of any country outside India then, notwithstanding such agreement, the provisions of the Act to the extent they are beneficial to that assesseee apply. The benefit claimed

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

68. What follows is, if the provisions contained in Section 90 is more beneficial to the assessee as compared to the - 85 - terms in the agreement by India with the Government of any country outside India then, notwithstanding such agreement, the provisions of the Act to the extent they are beneficial to that assesseee apply. The benefit claimed

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 5 vs. SRI SHAILESH HARAN

Appeal is dismissed

ITA/47/2021HC Karnataka05 Jun 2023

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

Section 260Section 68

long term capital gain? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal’s direction for reconsideration of the case can be said as perverse even though the Assessing Authority made addition under Section 68

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

ITA/705/2018HC Karnataka31 Mar 2023

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

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

long term capital gains Rs.5,25,000/-, the Assessing Officer has brought on record that seized material marked as ‘RB/1’, found from the premises of Sri K.Raghavacharyulu was sale agreement dated 26.12.2005 for land at Sy.No.25A, Ganesh Nagar, measuring 4200 sq.ft as per which the appellant had sold the property in question and the capital gains earned thereon

SHRI NARAYAN RAO HEBRI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA/166/2025HC Karnataka20 Feb 2026

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

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(2)Section 260Section 260A

long-term capital gains and treated the sum of Rs.1,14,20,100/-, so declared, along with the unexplained cash of Rs.24,00,000/-, as income from other sources and subjected the same to tax under Section 115BBE of the I.T. Act. The assessment was completed by order dated 17.07.2019. 4.3 Aggrieved thereby, the assessee preferred an appeal before

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

long term capital gains Rs.5,25,000/-, the Assessing Officer has brought on record that seized material marked as ‘RB/1’, found from the premises of Sri K.Raghavacharyulu was sale agreement dated 26.12.2005 for land at Sy.No.25A, Ganesh Nagar, measuring 4200 sq.ft as per which the appellant had sold the property in question and the capital gains earned thereon

M/S T T K PRESTIGE LTD vs. THE UNION OF INDIA REPTD BY ITS FINANCE SECRETARY

WP/26037/2005HC Karnataka06 Dec 2019

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice P.B. Bajanthri W.P. No.26037/2005 C/W W.P.No.4464/2007 & W.P.No.27087/2005(It)

Section 115

long as they are not singled out for special treatment. Taxation law is not an exception to this doctrine. 21. The power of the legislature to classify is of wide range and flexibility so that it can adjust its system of taxation in all proper and reason-able ways. On this issue Supreme Court has examined in the case

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

68 female workmen to sign on the dotted line and make them to accept the voluntary retirement scheme introduced by the management without giving any clue to the workers. The management illegally closed down the manufacturing operations on 30.11.2003. Thus, there has been illegal closure of production by the management w.e.f. 30.11.2003. The petitioners/workmen were entirely depending upon their