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.

208 results for “capital gains”+ Section 12Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai208Delhi194Bangalore121Ahmedabad89Jaipur62Kolkata60Chennai52Hyderabad45Pune37Calcutta34Indore33Visakhapatnam17Karnataka16Chandigarh15Lucknow15Cuttack10Agra8Nagpur8Surat7Raipur7Ranchi6Amritsar6Rajkot4Allahabad4Dehradun3Cochin3Telangana3Jabalpur2Panaji2SC2Patna1Andhra Pradesh1Jodhpur1

Key Topics

Section 11161Exemption65Section 12A60Section 2(15)59Addition to Income59Section 143(3)54Section 1038Charitable Trust36Section 153A30Disallowance

ADIT (E) RG I, MUMBAI vs. MEHTA CHARITY TRUST, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1069/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Mar 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2004-05 The Ddit(E)I(1), Mehta Charity Trust, R. No.504, Piramal Top Floor, Mehta Mahal, 15Th बनाम/ Chambers, 5Thfloor, Parel, Mathew Road, Opera House, Vs. Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400004 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.Aaatm5060A

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 263

Section 55. Thus the difference between the capital gain utilized in acquisition of new assets viz., Rs.2,78, 38,080 and the indexed cost of acquisition viz., Rs.2,51,22,641/- viz., Rs.27,15,449/- should be considered as application of capital gain for charitable purpose which would be entitled to exemption income u/s.11(1) of the Act. The remaining

Showing 1–20 of 208 · Page 1 of 11

...
30
Section 153C24
Section 25023

TATA EDUCATION TRUST,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 17, MUMBAI

ITA 7241/MUM/2019[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Mar 2021AY 2019-20
Section 11Section 115TSection 12A

capital in Tata Sons Limited as per the extracts of audited financial statement of Tata Sons Limited provided by the PCIT and hence the PCIT's conclusion that the Appellant was controlling a large business group through Tata Sons Limited was erroneous. The assessee has also filed an additional ground of appeal, on 26th October 2020, as 3. follows

R D TATA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 17, MUMBAI

ITA 7242/MUM/2019[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Mar 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Us, Are As Follows: Assessment Year: 2019-20

Section 11Section 115TSection 12A

capital in Tata Sons Limited as per the extracts of audited financial statement of Tata Sons Limited provided by the PCIT and hence the PCIT's conclusion that the Appellant was controlling a large business group through Tata Sons Limited was erroneous. The assessee has also filed an additional ground of appeal, on 26th October 2020, as 3. follows

TATA SOCIAL WELFARE TRUST,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 17, MUMBAI

ITA 7237/MUM/2019[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Mar 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Us, Are As Follows: Assessment Year: 2019-20

Section 11Section 115TSection 12A

capital in Tata Sons Limited as per the extracts of audited financial statement of Tata Sons Limited provided by the PCIT and hence the PCIT's conclusion that the Appellant was controlling a large business group through Tata Sons Limited was erroneous. The assessee has also filed an additional ground of appeal, on 26th October 2020, as 3. follows

SARVAJANIK SEVA TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 17, MUMBAI

ITA 7240/MUM/2019[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Mar 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Us, Are As Follows: Assessment Year: 2019-20

Section 11Section 115TSection 12A

capital in Tata Sons Limited as per the extracts of audited financial statement of Tata Sons Limited provided by the PCIT and hence the PCIT's conclusion that the Appellant was controlling a large business group through Tata Sons Limited was erroneous. The assessee has also filed an additional ground of appeal, on 26th October 2020, as 3. follows

ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 465/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115Section 32Section 32ASection 80I

12A) of section 80IA of the IT Act, merely neutralises applicability of sub-section (12) and does not disentitle the successor entities to claim deduction in accordance with section 80IA of the IT Act. Accordingly, AO is directed to allow the deduction as claimed by the assessee with respect to eligible units acquired from SCL. Accordingly, Ground no.1

DY CIT CC 1(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 931/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115Section 32Section 32ASection 80I

12A) of section 80IA of the IT Act, merely neutralises applicability of sub-section (12) and does not disentitle the successor entities to claim deduction in accordance with section 80IA of the IT Act. Accordingly, AO is directed to allow the deduction as claimed by the assessee with respect to eligible units acquired from SCL. Accordingly, Ground no.1

DCIT - CC - 1(4), MUMBAI vs. ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

ITA 2871/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nishant ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra
Section 115Section 153CSection 32Section 35Section 80I

gains of certain undertakings or enterprises engaged in the business of development, operation and maintenance of infrastructure facility, industrial parks and special economic zones or generation distribution or transmission of power, laying and operating cross-country natural gas distribution network, including gas pipelines and storage facilities being an integral part of the network, etc. Sub-section (12) of the said

ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

ITA 2461/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nishant ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra
Section 115Section 153CSection 32Section 35Section 80I

gains of certain undertakings or enterprises engaged in the business of development, operation and maintenance of infrastructure facility, industrial parks and special economic zones or generation distribution or transmission of power, laying and operating cross-country natural gas distribution network, including gas pipelines and storage facilities being an integral part of the network, etc. Sub-section (12) of the said

DCIT- CC- 1(4), MUMBAI vs. ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

ITA 2873/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nishant ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra
Section 115Section 153CSection 32Section 35Section 80I

gains of certain undertakings or enterprises engaged in the business of development, operation and maintenance of infrastructure facility, industrial parks and special economic zones or generation distribution or transmission of power, laying and operating cross-country natural gas distribution network, including gas pipelines and storage facilities being an integral part of the network, etc. Sub-section (12) of the said

ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

ITA 1413/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nishant ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra
Section 115Section 153CSection 32Section 35Section 80I

gains of certain undertakings or enterprises engaged in the business of development, operation and maintenance of infrastructure facility, industrial parks and special economic zones or generation distribution or transmission of power, laying and operating cross-country natural gas distribution network, including gas pipelines and storage facilities being an integral part of the network, etc. Sub-section (12) of the said

ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

ITA 2462/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nishant ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra
Section 115Section 153CSection 32Section 35Section 80I

gains of certain undertakings or enterprises engaged in the business of development, operation and maintenance of infrastructure facility, industrial parks and special economic zones or generation distribution or transmission of power, laying and operating cross-country natural gas distribution network, including gas pipelines and storage facilities being an integral part of the network, etc. Sub-section (12) of the said

DCIT -CC-1(4), MUMBAI vs. ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD. , MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

ITA 2872/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nishant ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra
Section 115Section 153CSection 32Section 35Section 80I

gains of certain undertakings or enterprises engaged in the business of development, operation and maintenance of infrastructure facility, industrial parks and special economic zones or generation distribution or transmission of power, laying and operating cross-country natural gas distribution network, including gas pipelines and storage facilities being an integral part of the network, etc. Sub-section (12) of the said

ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 1412/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nishant ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra
Section 115Section 153CSection 32Section 35Section 80I

gains of certain undertakings or enterprises engaged in the business of development, operation and maintenance of infrastructure facility, industrial parks and special economic zones or generation distribution or transmission of power, laying and operating cross- country natural gas distribution network, including gas pipelines and storage facilities being an integral part of the network, etc. Sub-section (12) of the said

JT. CIT (OSD)- CC - 1(4), MUMBAI vs. ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 3764/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nishant ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra
Section 115Section 153CSection 32Section 35Section 80I

gains of certain undertakings or enterprises engaged in the business of development, operation and maintenance of infrastructure facility, industrial parks and special economic zones or generation distribution or transmission of power, laying and operating cross- country natural gas distribution network, including gas pipelines and storage facilities being an integral part of the network, etc. Sub-section (12) of the said

KESHAV GORE SMARAK TRUST,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CPC), BANGLORE, BANGLORE

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 5037/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Milin DattaniFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Thakur
Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154

capital gains.” All the grounds pertain to the same issue and are, therefore, taken up together. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the Appellant is a charitable trust registered under Section 12A

VIPASSANA RESEARCH INSTITUTE,MUMBAI vs. ITO (EXEMPTION) - 2(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2532/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Vikas Awasthy & Shri G. Manjunathavipassana Research Institute Vs. Ito(Exemptions)-2(4) 2Nd Floor, Green House Piramal Chambers Green Street, Fort Lalbaug, Parel Mumbai-400 023 Mumbai-400 012 Pan/Gir No.Aaatv1217E (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 10(34)Section 10(35)Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 43

12A of the I.T.Act 1961. The assessee has filed its return of income for AY 2012-13 on 30/09/2012, declaring total deficit at Rs. 97,47,021/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and during the course of assessment proceedings, the Ld. AO noticed that the assesse has claimed depreciation on assets, which have been claimed as application of income

DCIT(CC)-8(3) , MUMBAI vs. SANTOSH VIMLESH MEHTA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3725/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit(Cc)-8(3) Santosh Vimlesh Mehta Room No. 661 6Th Floor, Aaykar 10, Mumbadevi Road, Vs. Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbadevi, Mumbai-400002 Mumbai-400020 Mumbai Pan No. Abhpm 0883 H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Devendra JainFor Respondent: Mr. Virabhadra Mahajan, SR-DR
Section 10(38)Section 69A

capital; it was required to make disclosure to the company and the capital; it was required to make disclosure to the company and the capital; it was required to make disclosure to the company and the BSE under Regulation 7(1) of SAST Regulations 1997 and under BSE under Regulation 7(1) of SAST Regulations 1997 and under BSE under

BAHADURLAL AMRITLAL JAIN CHARITABLE TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO (EXEMPTION) - 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5080/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Amarjit Singh (Jm)

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12A

12A of the Act and accordingly claimed exemption u/s. 11 of the Act. The main object of the assessee is to provide educational and medical help for the benefit of the general public. During the year under consideration, the assessee earned capital gains of ` 51.99 lakhs on sale of an asset. The assessee treated the same as “income derived from

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI vs. NANIKRAM MENGHRAJ TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3162/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhriito V/S. Nanikram Menghraj Trust Room No.618, Mtnl बनाम 113, 114 Navjivan, Building, Cumbala Hill, Commercial Building No.3, Peddar Road, Lamington Road, Maharashtra-400026 Mumbai Central, Maharashtra-400008 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaatn2215N Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel &For Respondent: Shri Anurag Tripathi
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

section 50C of the Act by adopting stamp duty value for the purpose of working out the capital gains. Assessment was P a g e | 4 ITA No. 3162/Mum/2024 & CO. No. 136/Mum/2024 A.Y. 2011-12 Nanikram Menghraj Trust finalized at an income of Rs. 2,45,07,428/- on account of long-term capital gains so computed. 5. Aggrieved with