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.

66 results for “capital gains”+ Section 250(6)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,047Delhi1,043Bangalore497Kolkata489Chennai462Ahmedabad414Jaipur384Surat252Hyderabad231Pune213Chandigarh180Cochin130Indore129Karnataka113Amritsar90Rajkot85Panaji84Visakhapatnam73Nagpur66Raipur66Patna62Cuttack53Calcutta52Lucknow49Agra40Guwahati28Dehradun26Jodhpur24Jabalpur14Ranchi14Allahabad14Varanasi10Telangana10SC9Rajasthan3Gauhati1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 153C85Section 143(3)64Addition to Income53Section 25047Section 6840Section 50C39Section 153A37Section 14834Section 26330Long Term Capital Gains

JEETENDRA CHANDRAKANT NAYAK,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOM TAX(OSD), NAGPUR

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

ITA 368/NAG/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur27 Jun 2024AY 2015-2016

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

For Appellant: Shri M.G.Moryani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Singhai, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 54F

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT (NAFC)”], for the assessment year 2015-16. Shri Jeetendra Chandrakant Nayak vs. ACIT (OSD) ITA no. 368/Nag./2023 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:– “1] Order passed by Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal

Showing 1–20 of 66 · Page 1 of 4

19
Natural Justice18
Condonation of Delay17

UDAYKUMAR VYAS,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 1 (5), BSNL RTTC BUILDING

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 262/NAG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Apr 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Royudaykumar Vyas, Ito, Ward – 1(5) Flat No. 402, Lepresting Vs Nagpur Apartment, Plot No. 105- 106, Ramdaspeth, Nagpur. Pan : Aarpv 4578 K Assessee Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sameer Wazalwar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT DR
Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 50C

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “Act”) which is arising out of assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act, dated 26.12.2019 by the ITO, Ward-1(5), Nagpur for the Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. SHIKHA INDRAKUMAR AGRAWAL, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 239/NAG/2023[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Apr 2026

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Dewani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69C

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “Act”) which is arising out of assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) dated 29.12.2017 by the ACIT, Circle-4, Nagpur for the Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals), NFAC

DCIT-CC-2(1), NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. INDRAKUMAR GHISULAL AGRAWAL, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 220/NAG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Apr 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Dewani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69C

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “Act”) which is arising out of assessment order ITA Nos. 220/NAG/2023 (Indrakumar Ghisulal Agrawal) passed u/s. 143(3) dated 26.12.2017 by the ITO, Ward-4(1), Nagpur for the Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. On the fact and in the circumstances

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

250 3. F–1/502 33,94,500 35,39,000 34,30,000 35,500 Total 97,11,500 1,09,83,000 1,03,93,000 6,81,500 The difference between agreement value and value determined by DVO is Rs.6,81,500/-. In terms of percentage the difference is 7% approximately. The short contention of the assessee

SIMA RAVISINGH KACHHAWAH,UMRER vs. ITO WARD 3(4), NAGPUR

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

ITA 418/NAG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shripavan Kumar Gadalesima Ravisingh Kachhawah, Girad Road, Om Nagar Umrer, ……………. Appellant Nagpur- 441203 Maharastra, Pan – Aqmpk2899K V/S Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–3(4), Nagpur Assessee By: Shri.D.P. Lohiya.Ar Revenue By :Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri.D.P. Lohiya.ARFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 270A(9)Section 272(1)(d)Section 44ASection 50CSection 80C

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which are illegal, invalid and bad in law. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal without adjudicating the matter on merits and without proper appreciation of the facts and submissions on record, rendering the order unjustified, unwarranted, and excessive. 4. The learned

MANISHA ASHUTOSH SHEWALKAR,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5(3), NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 67/NAG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur04 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 234A

section 148 of the Act in response to the which, the assessee, on 08/02/2019, filed her return of income for the assessment year 2014-15 declaring income at ` 5,35,480. The Information u/s 133(6) was called for from Revenue Department, Talathi Karyalaya, Tahsil Nagpur (Rural) on 04.11.2019 regarding the 7/12 extract of the land. The Assessing Officer

ANIL SHANKAR PALEWAR,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 36/NAG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur31 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.36/Nag/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Anil Shankar Palewar, The Income Tax Officer, Plot No.219, Suyog Nagar, V Ward-5(1), Nagpur. Nagpur – 440015. S Pan: Abzpp 8221 A Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Kapil Hirani – Ar Revenue By Smt. Rashmi Mathur – Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 26/10/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31/10/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Is Filed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax[Nfac], Delhi Dated 26.12.2021Under Section 250 Of The Act, 1961 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1) On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Ao Grossly Erred In Disallowing & The Ld. Cit(A) Nfac, Delhi Grossly Erred In Confirming The Denial Of Benefit Of Exemption Under Section 54Ec Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 As Claimed By The Appellant In His Return Of Income. The Exemption Under Section 54Ec Anil Shankar Palewar [A]

Section 250Section 54ESection 54F

250 of the Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2015-16. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : “1) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO grossly erred in disallowing and the Ld. CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi grossly erred in confirming the denial of benefit of exemption under section 54EC

DAYAL COTSPIN LIMITED,AKOLA vs. ACIT, AKOLA CIRCLE, AKOLA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 87/NAG/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur12 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Kishore P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 234ASection 68

Gain (LTCG). Please explain in detail all such modes employed by you for providing accommodation entries. Ans. Sir, The modes employed by me for providing accommodation entries against commission are as under: 1. Subscription to share capital at premium:- Sir, in such cases shares of the companies of clients/beneficiaries are subscribed at high premium by the companies floated/managed/controlled

SHREE MAYA REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD.,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 227/NAG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur02 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Naresh JakhotiaFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151Section 43C

250 3. F–1/502 33,94,500 35,39,000 34,30,000 35,500 Total 97,11,500 1,09,83,000 1,03,93,000 6,81,500 The difference between agreement value and value determined by DVO is Rs.6,81,500/-. In terms of percentage the difference is 7% approximately. The short contention of the assessee

SHREE MAYA REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD.,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 228/NAG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur02 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri Naresh JakhotiaFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151Section 43C

250 3. F–1/502 33,94,500 35,39,000 34,30,000 35,500 Total 97,11,500 1,09,83,000 1,03,93,000 6,81,500 The difference between agreement value and value determined by DVO is Rs.6,81,500/-. In terms of percentage the difference is 7% approximately. The short contention of the assessee

LATA SHARADRAO KHADSE,NAGPUR vs. A.O. WARD 3(4), NAGPUR, NAGPUR

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

ITA 537/NAG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur17 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shripavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri.Krishnakumar Gupta. ARFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.DR
Section 2(14)Section 250(6)Section 50C

250(6) of the Act. 3. Agricultural Land not a Capital Asset: The authorities below erred in holding that the land sold by the Appellant was a "capital asset" u/s 2(14) of the Act, ignoring that the said land was situated beyond 8 kilometres from the nearest municipal limits and thus constituted rural agricultural land, outside the ambit

LATA SHARADRAO KHADSE,NAGPUR vs. ITO WD3(4), NAGPUR

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

ITA 549/NAG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur17 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shripavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri.Krishnakumar Gupta. ARFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.DR
Section 2(14)Section 250(6)Section 50C

250(6) of the Act. 3. Agricultural Land not a Capital Asset: The authorities below erred in holding that the land sold by the Appellant was a "capital asset" u/s 2(14) of the Act, ignoring that the said land was situated beyond 8 kilometres from the nearest municipal limits and thus constituted rural agricultural land, outside the ambit

PAWAN SHARADRAO KHADSE,NAGPUR vs. A.O. WARD 3(4), NAGPUR, NAGPUR

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

ITA 534/NAG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur17 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shripavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri.Krishnakumar Gupta. ARFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.DR
Section 2(14)Section 250(6)Section 50C

250(6) of the Act. 3. Agricultural Land not a Capital Asset: The authorities below erred in holding that the land sold by the Appellant was a "capital asset" u/s 2(14) of the Act, ignoring that the said land was situated beyond 8 kilometres from the nearest municipal limits and thus constituted rural agricultural land, outside the ambit

ALKESH SHARADRAOJI KHADSE,NAGPUR vs. A.O. WARD 3(4),NAGPUR, NAGPUR

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

ITA 536/NAG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur17 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shripavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri.Krishnakumar Gupta. ARFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.DR
Section 2(14)Section 250(6)Section 50C

250(6) of the Act. 3. Agricultural Land not a Capital Asset: The authorities below erred in holding that the land sold by the Appellant was a "capital asset" u/s 2(14) of the Act, ignoring that the said land was situated beyond 8 kilometres from the nearest municipal limits and thus constituted rural agricultural land, outside the ambit

ALKESH SHARADRAOJI KHADSE,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 3(4), NAGPUR

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

ITA 544/NAG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur17 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shripavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri.Krishnakumar Gupta. ARFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.DR
Section 2(14)Section 250(6)Section 50C

250(6) of the Act. 3. Agricultural Land not a Capital Asset: The authorities below erred in holding that the land sold by the Appellant was a "capital asset" u/s 2(14) of the Act, ignoring that the said land was situated beyond 8 kilometres from the nearest municipal limits and thus constituted rural agricultural land, outside the ambit

SMT . RAJANI SURENDRA ADAMANE ,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(1), NAGPUR

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms

ITA 103/NAG/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhrysmt. Rajani Surendra Ito, Ward-4(4), Nagpur Adamane, Plot No.30, Near Ghodke School Surendra Vs. Nagar, Hudkeshwar Road, Nagpur-440024. Pan: Alapa 9897 L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Bhavesh Moryani, Ld. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Ld. Sr.D.R
Section 250Section 50CSection 54(2)Section 54F

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘Act’) for the A.Y. 2011-12. 2 2. In this case, the Assessing Officer (AO) in the scrutiny assessment observed that the Assessee had sold one residential property vide sale deed dated 15/03/2011 for a consideration of Rs. 48 Lac, as against stamp duty valuation

M/S. DATTA DAIRY PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.,BULDHANA vs. ITO, WARD-1, , KHAMGAON

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

ITA 96/NAG/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur02 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Miss. J.S.Thakar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(ix)

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT (NAFC)”], for the assessment year 2011-12. 2. The grounds of appeal raised are as follows: M/s. Datta Dairy Products Pvt Ltd. vs. ITO Ward-1 Khamgaon ITA no. 96/Nag./2021 [1] Learned C.I.T. (A) erred

JAGDISH KANHAIYALAL KHUSHALANI,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(3) NAGPUR, NAGPUR

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

ITA 690/NAG/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur11 Feb 2026AY 2019-2020

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. Moryani, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr.DR
Section 154Section 250Section 50C

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act') which is arising out of rectification order dated 11.09.2020 passed u/s. 154 of the Act for the Assessment Year 2019-20 (A.Y.) 2. The sole grievance of the assessee is against the addition u/s. 50C of the Act at ₹ 22,32,000/- for the difference in stamp duty valuation

SHUBHANGI PRAVIN NIDHAN,NAGPUR vs. A.O., WARD 3(4), NAGPUR, NAGPUR

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

ITA 535/NAG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur15 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri.Krishnakumar Gupta.A.RFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.DR
Section 2(14)Section 250(6)Section 50C

250(6) of the Act. 3. Wrong Application of Section 50C: The Ld. CIT(A) and Assessing Officer have erred in adopting the stamp duty valuation of Rs. 55,98,000/- for Agricultural Land-2 instead of the actual sale consideration of Rs. 55.55,295/- even though the difference was less than 5% as permitted under the proviso to Section