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.

5 results for “capital gains”+ Section 253(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai629Delhi524Ahmedabad139Bangalore118Karnataka117Chennai107Jaipur92Kolkata83Indore73Chandigarh73Surat51Hyderabad48Pune46Lucknow25Guwahati23Ranchi21Calcutta21Panaji19Raipur15Amritsar14Telangana12Cochin11Allahabad10Rajkot8Cuttack8Visakhapatnam7Varanasi7Patna6Agra5Nagpur5SC4Jodhpur2Rajasthan2Andhra Pradesh1Orissa1

Key Topics

Section 13(1)(c)6Section 142(1)4Section 114Section 143(2)3Deduction3Section 1392Section 402Section 13(3)2

ECONOMIC EXPLOSIVES LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 (2), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2018–19 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 177/NAG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Mani JainFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

253) while considering the question as to whether refund of sales tax on raw materials, machinery and finished goods, levied by the State Government be treated as capital or revenue in nature held as under: "Held, dismissing the appeal, that under the notification in question the payments were made to assist the new industries at the commencement of business

ECONOMIC EXPLOSIVES LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. NATIONAL E ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2018–19 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 242/NAG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Mani JainFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

253) while considering the question as to whether refund of sales tax on raw materials, machinery and finished goods, levied by the State Government be treated as capital or revenue in nature held as under: "Held, dismissing the appeal, that under the notification in question the payments were made to assist the new industries at the commencement of business

LOKMANYA TILAD JANAKALYA SHIKSHAN SANSTHA,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -2, NAGPUR

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 384/NAG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ram Lal Negi..

For Appellant: Shri K.P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri A.R. Ninawe
Section 1Section 11Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 40

gains of business or profession. However as it has already been held by me in ground no. 2 to 4 that assessee is not eligible for exemption u/s 11 this argument of the appellant is not tenable. The requirement to deduct tax at source does not exclude entities which are exempted u/s :11. The intent of the legislature was that

ATUL MANOHARRAO YAMSANWAR,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), NAGPUR

ITA 256/NAG/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

1 SCC 248 and SL Kapoor v. Jagmohan (1980)\n4 SCC 379).\n30. As already noted above, the expression "civil consequences”\nencompasses infraction of not merely property or personal rights but of civil\nliberties, material deprivations and non-pecuniary damages. Anything which\naffects a citizen in his civil life comes under its wide umbrella. Accordingly,\nwe reject the argument

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(3),, NAGPUR vs. M/S. 21ST CENTURY INFRASTRUCTURE (INDIA) PVT. LTD., NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 207/NAG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri MahaveerAtal, CAFor Respondent: ShriPiyushKohle, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56

gainfully refer to the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court expositions in this case as under; 1) CIT vs. Gagandeep Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. [2017] 394 ITR 680 had held as under: (e) We find that the proviso to section 68 of the Act has been introduced by the Finance Act 2012 with effect from 1st April, 2013. Thus it would