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.

27 results for “capital gains”+ Revision u/s 263clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai787Delhi477Bangalore302Chennai260Kolkata227Jaipur204Ahmedabad157Karnataka122Indore118Pune113Hyderabad82Chandigarh80Cochin57Visakhapatnam54Surat54Rajkot49Raipur40Panaji34Nagpur27Lucknow18Cuttack18Jabalpur16Jodhpur16Amritsar13Dehradun11Agra9Patna7Guwahati6Ranchi5Telangana2Varanasi2Calcutta1Punjab & Haryana1Kerala1

Key Topics

Section 263120Section 143(3)51Addition to Income19Section 14716Section 14810Revision u/s 26310Section 143(1)7Section 1456Section 142A6Section 50C

VINAY RAMSHARANDAS AGRAWAL,NAGPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 110/NAG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kishore P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 143(3)Section 263

revision of assessment proposed by the ACIT, Circle–3, Nagpur, vide letter dated 30/08/2021, which reads as under:– 12 Vinay Ramsharandas Agrawal ITA no.110/Nag./2023 “Respected Madam, Sub.:-Proposal for remedial action U/s 263 for reopening of assessment in the case of VinayAgrawal, PAN ABGPA3839E,A.Y.2017-18-Approval U/s 263 of the I. Tax Act-reg Kindly refer to the subject above

SUSHILA BHAURAO DESHMUKH,AMRAVATI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Showing 1–20 of 27 · Page 1 of 2

6
Capital Gains6
Exemption5
ITA 76/NAG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur20 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durgarao & Shrik.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: ShriK.P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Salunke
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 54BSection 54E

capital gain is Rs.170.72lacs. Exemption u/s 54EC is Rs.50lacs and balance amount is allowed u/s 54B. K) Order passed u/s 263 of I.T. Act 1961 does not indicate as to what enquiry has not been made on the facts and evidence on record. In show cause notice and in order passed u/s 263 no inquiries as are required is specified

LAXMAN PANDURANG DUDHE,NAGPUR vs. PRINCIPAL C.I.T. -2, NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 177/NAG/2017[]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Jan 2018

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Hirani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gitesh Kumar, Senior DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 50C

u/s 263 of the Act revising the assessment in relation to long term capital gain valuing the 2 ITA-177/Nag/2017

VASANT CO-OP SHETKARI GINNING & PRESSING FACTORY LTD.,YAVATMAL vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 29/NAG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 29/Nag/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 The Vasant Co-Op. Shetkari Ginning & Pressing Factory Limited; At. Yavatmal Road, Wani, Tq. Wani, Dist. Yavatmal-440 010 Pan : Aaaat1439M .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii, Nagpur. ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pravin Gandhi, Ar Revenue By : Shri Vitthal Bhosale, Dr

For Appellant: Shri Pravin Gandhi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vitthal Bhosale, DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54G

Capital Gain (for short ‘LTCG’) on the sale of the same; (ii). that the Assessing Officer failing to appreciate that the assessee had not shifted any industrial undertaking but had carried out a simpliciter sale of a factory which was closed on 02.02.2010 had summarily accepted its claim for deduction under Sec. 54G of the Act.; (iii). that the Assessing

NIRMALKUMAR AGRAWAL HUF,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, BHANDARA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 242/NAG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Loya a/wFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 263

revised u/s 263 of the Act. Accordingly, in exercise of powers vested in me u/s 263 of the Act the above said reassessment order dated 24.03.2023 passed by AO u/s 147 read with 5 Nirmalkumar Agrawal (HUF) ITA no.242/Nag./2025 section 144B of the Act for A.Y. 2018-19 in the case of the assessee is set aside, with

SHRI. ABDULLABHAI HASANALI,,NAGPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,-II, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

ITA 621/NAG/2008[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur15 Oct 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh LoyaFor Respondent: Dr. Milind Bhusari, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 271(1)

capital gains which is already adjudicated by us while dealing with the appeal on the revision order u/s 263 of the Act in ITA No.621/NAG/2008

ABDULLABHAI HASANALI THROUGH L/H ZOHRABAI,NAGPUR vs. A.C.I.T. CIR-3,, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

ITA 318/NAG/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur15 Oct 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh LoyaFor Respondent: Dr. Milind Bhusari, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 271(1)

capital gains which is already adjudicated by us while dealing with the appeal on the revision order u/s 263 of the Act in ITA No.621/NAG/2008

ABDULLABHAI HASANALI THROUGH L/H ZOHRABAI,NAGPUR vs. A.C.I.T. CIR-3,, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

ITA 317/NAG/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur15 Oct 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh LoyaFor Respondent: Dr. Milind Bhusari, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 271(1)

capital gains which is already adjudicated by us while dealing with the appeal on the revision order u/s 263 of the Act in ITA No.621/NAG/2008

SHREE SANT BHOJAJI MAHARAJ DEOSTHAN AJANSARA,WARDHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION) -4, NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is in ITA No

ITA 211/NAG/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur01 Apr 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 263

capital receipt and not taxable. Irrespective of the fact that assessee is registered u/s. 12A/12AA or not. The assessee has utilised the entire donation for constructing community hall for devotee and building fund and area development and maintenance fund by making arrangement at the entry point in temple premises a box specifically naming box collection for building fund and area

SHREE SANT BHOJAJI MAHARAJ DEOSTHAN AJANSARA,WARDHA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), PUNE AT NGP, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is in ITA No

ITA 186/NAG/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur01 Apr 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 263

capital receipt and not taxable. Irrespective of the fact that assessee is registered u/s. 12A/12AA or not. The assessee has utilised the entire donation for constructing community hall for devotee and building fund and area development and maintenance fund by making arrangement at the entry point in temple premises a box specifically naming box collection for building fund and area

SHREE SANT BHOJAJI MAHARAJ DEOSTHAN AJANSARA,WARDHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION) - 4, NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is in ITA No

ITA 212/NAG/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur01 Apr 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 263

capital receipt and not taxable. Irrespective of the fact that assessee is registered u/s. 12A/12AA or not. The assessee has utilised the entire donation for constructing community hall for devotee and building fund and area development and maintenance fund by making arrangement at the entry point in temple premises a box specifically naming box collection for building fund and area

PRADEEP DATTATRAYA BANGINWAR,YAVATMAL vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 28/NAG/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur01 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 28/Nag/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Pradeep Dattatraya Banginwar, At- Trimurti Sales, Datta Chowk, Yavatmal-445 001. Pan : Abcpb5111C .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii, Nagpur. ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : Shri P.M. Gandhi, Ca Revenue By : Shri Vitthal Bhosale, Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing :17.02.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of Pronouncement : 06.04.2022

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Gandhi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vitthal Bhosale, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

revised u/s. 263 of the Act. The multi-facet explanation of the assessee i.e, both as regards the validity of the jurisdiction assumed by 5 Pradeep Dattatraya Bangirwar Vs. Pr CIT-II the Pr. CIT u/s. 263 of the Act, as well as those advanced by him in order to support the genuineness of the share transactions in question, however

PRAMOD AGRAWAL ,NAGPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, NAGPUR

Accordingly, the grounds of appeal 2 & 3 are dismissed

ITA 43/NAG/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur19 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Vikram Singh Yadav & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Sh. Pramod Agrawal (Huf) Pr. Cit-2, 301, Sai Ankur Apartments Nagpur-440 001 Ramdaspeth Vs. Nagpur-440 010 Pan:Aaihp 2699N (Respondent) (Appellant)

Section 10Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263

Capital Gain trading in a Penny Stock Company. Accordingly, a notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 28.03.2018 has been issued. In response, the assessee filed ITR on 12/06/2018 for A.Y.2011-12. Further, notice u/s 143(2). and 142(1) of the Act have also been issued. The assessee through his representative participated in the assessment proceedings. Single page assessment order

SUFALAM INFRA PROJECTS LTD ,NAGPUR vs. PR. CIT (CENTRAL ), NAGPUR

In the result, the departmental appeal is dismissed

ITA 97/NAG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Hirani, Adv &For Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CTI DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

revision of orders prejudicial to revenue. The existing provisions contained in sub-section (1) of section 263 of the Income tax Act provides that if the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner considers that any Order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, he may, after giving the assessee

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. M/S. SUFLAM INFRA PROJECT LTD, NAGPUR

In the result, the departmental appeal is dismissed

ITA 46/NAG/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Hirani, Adv &For Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CTI DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

revision of orders prejudicial to revenue. The existing provisions contained in sub-section (1) of section 263 of the Income tax Act provides that if the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner considers that any Order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, he may, after giving the assessee

SAN FINANCE CORPORATION,NAGPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 40/NAG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur11 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya
Section 143(3)Section 263

u/s 263 of the Act dated 11.03.2022 setting aside the original Assessment Order dated 19.12.2019 and directing fresh assessment to examine issue on which the then Ld. AO has already applied it mind during the original assessment proceedings makes the present revision a mere change opinion, not being permissible under the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 3. Brief facts

VIKAS GUPTA ,INDORE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 186/NAG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Ms. Neha JainFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

revision under section 263 is challenged in appeal, then, on the items which are subject matter of appeal, no power under section 263 could be exercised by the ld. Commissioner. We may elaborate 7 Vikas Gupta ITA no.186/Nag./2024 further, for example- an assessment order was passed, it contains five issues, which were challenged before

RAJENDRA G MISHRA,NAGPUR vs. PR. CIT-2, NAGPUR

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 94/NAG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash G. Kanojiya, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263(1)Section 54

revision proceedings u/s 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961, the assessee’s counsel was confronted with the facts of the case. The counsel has stated that. evidence for expenses claimed on improvement of the property in question is not available with him. He was not able to provide any other evidence to support his claim. Under these circumstances, the assessee

PRITAM SINGH CHARAN SINGH GUJJAR,NAGPUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4,, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 406/NAG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri Bhavesh MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 48Section 50C

revision or no reference has been made before any other authority, court or the High Court, the Assessing Officer may refer the valuation of the capital asset to a Valuation Officer and where any such reference is made, the provisions of sub-sections (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6) of section 16A, clause (i) of sub- section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S. RADHA RADHAV DEVELOPER, NAGPUR

In the result, all the six appeals preferred by the department are dismissed

ITA 49/NAG/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

Section 142ASection 145

263 in case of appellant is doubt, because of the close connection and proximity of the business transaction. [iii] The sale of flats in the project was never doubted or questioned by the department and the sales as per books of account were duly accepted. Therefore, if at all the appellant has made such huge unexplained expenditure, he must have