BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtAI 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.

38 results for “capital gains”+ Section 81clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai997Delhi695Chennai251Bangalore192Ahmedabad187Jaipur165Hyderabad138Chandigarh131Kolkata96Raipur84Cochin81Indore79Pune48SC39Nagpur38Rajkot37Visakhapatnam35Surat33Lucknow31Amritsar19Cuttack12Dehradun12Jodhpur11Guwahati6Ranchi5Panaji5Patna5Agra4Jabalpur3MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Allahabad1Varanasi1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1

Key Topics

Section 153C85Section 143(3)41Section 6840Section 153A37Addition to Income34Section 14821Section 143(2)15Section 25014Section 14714Unexplained Cash Credit

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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 which is not utilised by the assessee for the purchase of the new asset before the date of furnishing the return of income under section 139, shall be deposited by him before furnishing such return [such deposit being made in any case not later than the due date applicable in the case of the assessee for furnishing

Showing 1–20 of 38 · Page 1 of 2

9
Disallowance8
Business Income7

SHRI DEEPAK SURESH GADGE,,NAGPUR vs. DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1 , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee partly allowed

ITA 23/NAG/2018[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Nov 2024AY 2013-2014

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

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 234A

section 45(4) of the Act. Accordingly, in the hands of the assessee, the cost would have been ` 6,52,75,227, for the purpose of 9 Shri Deepak Gadge computing income as against a sum of ` 1,81,48,232, taken by the assessee for the purpose of computing capital gain

SHABBIR AHMED AHMED ALI,NAGPUR vs. NATIONAL E ASSESMENT CENTRY, DELHI

ITA 112/NAG/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur14 Aug 2024AY 2018-2019

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 50CSection 54

81,229 (Coat as on 25/04/2007 – ` 10,80,000) Expenses on Transfer 1,61,000 Capital Gain 57,07,771 Less: Exemption: Under section

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

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR vs. SHRI SANJAY GAURISHANKAR AGRAWAL , NAGPUR

ITA 109/NAG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur03 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 10(38)Section 68

81,283/ thus a total receipt of Rs.95,60,988/- against which total long term capital gain of Rs.94,60,988.70 has been claimed by assessee as exempt u/s 10(38) of IT Act 1961 in A.Y 2014-15. ii) The claim of the assessee of exempt LTCG amounting to Rs. 94,60,988.70/- was not allowed by the assessing

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

gains under this anti-avoidance provision. In our humble understanding, it is a case of a curative amendment to take care of unintended consequences of the scheme of Section 50C. It makes perfect sense, and truly reflects a very pragmatic approach full of compassion and fairness, that just because there is a small variation between the stated sale consideration

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

gains under this anti-avoidance provision. In our humble understanding, it is a case of a curative amendment to take care of unintended consequences of the scheme of Section 50C. It makes perfect sense, and truly reflects a very pragmatic approach full of compassion and fairness, that just because there is a small variation between the stated sale consideration

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

gains under this anti-avoidance provision. In our humble understanding, it is a case of a curative amendment to take care of unintended consequences of the scheme of Section 50C. It makes perfect sense, and truly reflects a very pragmatic approach full of compassion and fairness, that just because there is a small variation between the stated sale consideration

SHRIRAM NARAYAN TIKDE,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX, WARD 4(4) , NAGPUR

ITA 89/NAG/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur27 Jan 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 234BSection 50C(2)Section 54Section 68

section 54 by making investment of Rs.17,00,000 in construction of new residential property at Janaki Nagar, within prescribed period of time. The capital gains computation as per assessee is as under: 2.1 Particulars Amount Amount Sale of Residential Property 14,50,000.00 a. Consideration Received 20,56,000.00 20,56,000.00 b. Stamp Valuation U/s 54C (Whichever

VIDHARBHA KONKAN GRAMIN BANK ,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(5) , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 8/NAG/2019[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Nov 2024AY 2015-2016

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

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 22Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 80P

81,436, by making addition of ` 97,06,79,200, as disallowance under the provisions for bad and doubtful debt under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act, ` 17,39,54,837, as addition on account of interest accrued but not due on Government and other securities, ` 2,68,07,020, as disallowance on account of deduction under section

VIDHARBHA KONKAN GRAMIN BANK ,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(5) , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 7/NAG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 22Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 80P

81,436, by making addition of ` 97,06,79,200, as disallowance under the provisions for bad and doubtful debt under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act, ` 17,39,54,837, as addition on account of interest accrued but not due on Government and other securities, ` 2,68,07,020, as disallowance on account of deduction under section

SYED YUNUS SYED RASUL ,AMRAVATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, AMRAVATI

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 418/NAG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur23 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhrysyed Yunus Syed Rasul, Ito, Ward-4, Amravati. Gawalipura, Chandani Chowk, Vs. Amravati - 444601. Pan: Bkapr 1095 K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Bhavesh Moryani, Ld. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Ld. Sr.D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 292B

81,300/- on sale of the said land in the hands of Assessee. Consequently, the reasons for reopening of the case were recorded and the case of the Assessee was reopened by issuing notice dated 25/03/2019 u/sec. 148 of the Act. Thereafter, a notice u/sec. 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire was issued on 27/08/2019. In response

SUBHASHCHAND CHANDAK (HUF),NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 85/NAG/2021[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur16 Jul 2024AY 2006-07

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

For Appellant: Shri K.M. GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250Section 288ASection 68

Capital Gain, which is against the provision of law. 2. The Assessing Officer has not assumed proper jurisdiction u/s.148 to assess the assessee u/s.147 read with section 143(3). Hence, the order passed by the Assessing Officer is bad in law. 3. The order passed by Assessing Officer is against the principle laid down by the Supreme Court, Bombay High

RAMESH WASUDEORAO NAWSALKAR,AMRAVATI vs. DCIT AMRAVATI CIRCLE, AMRAVATI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 746/NAG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Bhushan Lathiya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 30

81,960/- in the return of income for A.Y.2014-15 filed on 28.07.2014. During the year under consideration, assessee sold plots for a consideration of ₹1,30,44,126/- and apart from the other expenses towards cost of acquisition, the assessee also claimed brokerage expenses and registration charges. During the course of assessment proceedings carried

TAJSHREE AUTOWHEELS PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 400/NAG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur04 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Madhav VichoreFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

gains by understatement of the consideration. This was real object and purpose of the enactment of sub-section (2) and the interpretation of this sub-section must fall in line with the advancement of that object and purpose. We must, therefore, accept as the underlying assumption of subsection (2) that there is understatement of consideration in respect of the transfer

RAVINDRA MADANLAL KHANDELWAL,AKOLA vs. DCIT/ACIT CIRCLE , AKOLA

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

ITA 375/NAG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 144BSection 68

capital, reserves and share premium. Therefore, as the company has no option to borrow funds from the outsiders, the shareholders have borrowed funds in their Individual capacities and forwarded same to the company. Even the cash credit limit of the assessee‟s proprietorship concern was used to advance funds to the private limited company. Therefore

MISS FATEMA SHOEB HUSSAIN,,NAGPUR vs. ITO, WARD- 2(4),, NAGPUR

ITA 69/NAG/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur02 Sept 2024AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Rachit ThakarFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 69

81,22,454 Relating to Travel Income from travel ` 1,02,030 business business Unexplained sale ` 23,23,334 transaction ` 24,25,364 ` 1,05,47,818 ` 1,05,47,818 Unexplained credit ` 39,82,675 in bank Relating to Maria Construction Estimated business ` 4,07,700 income 2009–10 ` 43,90,373 Relating to Travel Unexplained credit

M/S. FATEMA SHOEB HUSSAIN,,NAGPUR vs. ITO, WARD- 2(4),, NAGPUR

ITA 64/NAG/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur02 Sept 2024AY 2004-05

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

For Appellant: Shri Rachit ThakarFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 69

81,22,454 Relating to Travel Income from travel ` 1,02,030 business business Unexplained sale ` 23,23,334 transaction ` 24,25,364 ` 1,05,47,818 ` 1,05,47,818 Unexplained credit ` 39,82,675 in bank Relating to Maria Construction Estimated business ` 4,07,700 income 2009–10 ` 43,90,373 Relating to Travel Unexplained credit

M/S. FATEMA SHOEB HUSSAIN,,NAGPUR vs. ITO, WARD- 2(4),, NAGPUR

ITA 65/NAG/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur02 Sept 2024AY 2005-06

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

For Appellant: Shri Rachit ThakarFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 69

81,22,454 Relating to Travel Income from travel ` 1,02,030 business business Unexplained sale ` 23,23,334 transaction ` 24,25,364 ` 1,05,47,818 ` 1,05,47,818 Unexplained credit ` 39,82,675 in bank Relating to Maria Construction Estimated business ` 4,07,700 income 2009–10 ` 43,90,373 Relating to Travel Unexplained credit

M/S. FATEMA SHOEB HUSSAIN,,NAGPUR vs. ITO, WARD- 2(4),, NAGPUR

ITA 66/NAG/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur02 Sept 2024AY 2006-07

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

For Appellant: Shri Rachit ThakarFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 69

81,22,454 Relating to Travel Income from travel ` 1,02,030 business business Unexplained sale ` 23,23,334 transaction ` 24,25,364 ` 1,05,47,818 ` 1,05,47,818 Unexplained credit ` 39,82,675 in bank Relating to Maria Construction Estimated business ` 4,07,700 income 2009–10 ` 43,90,373 Relating to Travel Unexplained credit