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.

41 results for “capital gains”+ Section 96clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,886Delhi1,307Bangalore617Ahmedabad453Chennai391Jaipur326Kolkata306Hyderabad252Chandigarh207Pune151Karnataka135Cochin131Indore117Surat108Raipur77Visakhapatnam74Calcutta54Rajkot49Cuttack46Panaji44Nagpur41Lucknow39Amritsar33Guwahati26Patna20Agra19Telangana13SC11Ranchi10Allahabad7Jodhpur6Kerala5Rajasthan5Dehradun4Punjab & Haryana2D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1Gauhati1Orissa1Jabalpur1Andhra Pradesh1Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)56Section 153A27Section 6825Addition to Income24Section 80P(2)(a)22Section 14814Section 13213Section 26312Section 25011

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

96,33,940. During the course of regular assessment framed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), reasons for selection under CASS was to verify capital gain

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

Showing 1–20 of 41 · Page 1 of 3

Survey u/s 133A6
Unexplained Cash Credit6
Search & Seizure6
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

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

section 50C is not applicable. 2. Without prejudice to above, the computation of capital gain done by AO and confirmed by CIT(A) is incorrect, since while calculating the capital gain on sale of land to M/s Vedbhumi Builders, the cost of acquisition of different land is deducted from the sale price. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter

SHRI SANKET NANDLAL SARAF,,NAGPUR vs. I.T.O. WARD 1(4), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 24/NAG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur15 Jul 2022AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri R.K.Ganeriwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Agnes P. Thomas, DR
Section 143(1)Section 50CSection 50C(1)

96,023/-. The market value at the time of execution of sale deed was Rs. 61,26,000/-. The Property was in possession of buyer who is a charitable trust and operating school there since 1999. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the sale consideration as per agreement to sale being 1/3rd share of Rs.17,00,000/-, however

DY. C.I.T. CIR-.2, NAGPUR vs. SHRI GOVINDDAS GOVERDHAN DAGA, NAGPUR

In the result, cross-objection filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 517/NAG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur05 Feb 2025AY 2012-13
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 147Section 148Section 44A

Capital Gain\" shownby the assessee.\n11. Considering the facts mentioned herein above, I have reason to believe that\nincome has escaped assessment and therefore consider this case fit for re-\nopening u/s 147 of the 1.T. Act, 1961, for A.Y. 2012-13.\n12. Issue Notice u/s 148 of the I.T, Act, 1961 for A.Y. 2012-13.\nDate: 05/01/2015

SHRI RAJESH DAYARAMANI,,NAGPUR vs. ACIT, CIR-8,, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 449/NAG/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Jun 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri K.P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri A.R. Ninawe
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 44ASection 54F

gain exemption cannot be granted considering the proviso to section 54F(1) of the Act reproduced at Para–3.3 of assessment order, the Assessing Officer has, accordingly, denied the deduction claimed under section 54F of the Act in assessment framed. Before us, it is submitted that the construction of residential house is competed on 29th December 2008 and thus

ASSTT. CIT, CIR- 7, NAGPUR vs. M/S. NEWQUEST CORPORATION LTD., CHANDRAPUR

ITA 328/NAG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2008-2009 The Acit Vs. M/S.Newquest Corporation Ltd. Circle-7, (Now Known As M/S. Avantha Nagpur Holding Ltd. Ballalrpur Paper Mills P.O. Ballarpur, Distt. Chandrapur Pan No.:Aabcb 6134 E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Dewani (Adv.)For Respondent: ShriPiyushKolhe (CIT-DR)
Section 40

96,73,647/-/- without appreciating the fact that the expenditure incurred is not wholly and exclusively for the purpose of assessee’s business but also relates to assessee’s group companies.? Assessment year 2010-11l 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) is right in allowing assessee

ANANT RAMRAO CHAVAN,AMRAVATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, AMRAVATI

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

ITA 476/NAG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 250

capital gain assessed at ` 96,90,000, and demand raised of ` 32,48,488, vide order passed under section 143(3) r/w section

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

SMS TOLLS AND DEVELOPERS,NAGPUR vs. ITO, WARD 1(5), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in terms indicated above

ITA 348/NAG/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

capital gains is not to wait for the end of the previous year. Similarly, there can be income from other sources also such as receipt of dividend income or interest which may not have to wait for determination at the end of the year. Similarly, some subsidy may be received from the Government which may be taxable on receipt basis

M/S SHREE STEEL CQASTINGS PVT. LTD ,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -1, NAGPUR

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 112/NAG/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Jun 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhrym/S. Shree Steel Castings Dcit, Circle-1, Nagpur Pvt. Ltd., T/38/1, Midc, Vs. Hingna Road, Nagpur. Pan: Aaccs 4071 J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Hirani &For Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Ld. Sr.D.R
Section 133(6)Section 142Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 250

96,000/-, however, restricted the disallowance of Rs. 3,58,244/- to Rs. 82,932/- as disallowance u/sec. 14A of the Act. 5. The Assessee, thus being aggrieved, has preferred the instant appeal mainly challenging the reopening of the proceedings u/sec. 147 of the Act. The Assessee at the outset has claimed that in the reasons recorded dated 08/08/2013

M/S. HARIHAR INFRASTUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,,NAGPUR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE- 1,, NAGPUR

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

ITA 60/NAG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 60/Nag/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Harihar Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd.; G-3, Amar Palace, Opp. Patwardhan Ground, Dhantoli, Nagpur-12. Pan : Aabch9888H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1, Nagpur. ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : Shri S. Shriram, Ar Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Headoo, Dr

For Appellant: Shri S. Shriram, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Headoo, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(ii)Section 234A

gain on sale of agricultural land is exempt u/s.2(1A) of I.T.Act, 1961. 3. The addition made by the AO at Rs.31,45,251/- in the assessment framed as business income is unjustified, unwarranted and bad in law. 3 M/s. Harihar Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Nagpur 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. VINODKUMAR RAJENDRALAL KOCHHAR, KAMPTEE

In the result, the appeal filed by the department is dismissed

ITA 386/NAG/2023[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur31 Jul 2024

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 44A

Gains and Income from other sources & he had been regularly filing his return of income for the last 5 decades. (iii) During the captioned assessment year, the appellant had opted for computation of income U/s. 44AD in respect of his business activity and while filing online return of Income u/s. 139(1) for AY 2016-17, PART A-BS- Balance

RAMESHCHANDRA RAMDHAN AGRAWAL,AKOLA vs. ITO, WARD- 1, AKOLA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 151/NAG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Dewani (through virtual)For Respondent: Shri G.J. Ninawe (through virtual)
Section 50ASection 55A

capital gain at Rs. 12,64,331/- as against declared value in the return at Rs. 52,258/-. In this case, there has been a reference by the ld. A.O to the D.V.O u/s 55A of the Act for determining the value of property concerned. It is the contention of the assessee that they had adopted the value which

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

SHRI SANJAY DHANRAJ JAIN,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR

ITA 57/NAG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Rajesh LoyaFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234A

capital gains and interest etc. The return of income u/s. 139(1)\nwas filed on 17-02-2012 declaring total income of Rs. 10,36,730/-. Intimation\nu/s. 143(1) was issued on 7-6-2012 accepting the returned income. A search\naction u/s. 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted on 26-7-2016 in\nthe case

SHRI SANJAY DHANRAJ JAIN,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR

In the result, assessee' appeal for A

ITA 55/NAG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2012-13
Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234A

capital gains and interest etc. The return of income u/s. 139(1) was filed on 17-02-2012 declaring total income of Rs. 10,36,730/-. Intimation u/s. 143(1) was issued on 7-6-2012 accepting the returned income. A search action u/s. 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted on 26-7-2016 in the case

SHRI SANJAY DHANRAJ JAIN,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR

ITA 59/NAG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Rajesh LoyaFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234A

capital gains and interest etc. The return of income u/s. 139(1)\nwas filed on 17-02-2012 declaring total income of Rs. 10,36,730/-. Intimation\nu/s. 143(1) was issued on 7-6-2012 accepting the returned income. A search\naction u/s. 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted on 26-7-2016 in\nthe case

THE VIDHARBHA PREMIER CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD,,NAGPUR vs. TAX RECOVERY OFFICER, RANGE-6, NAGPUR

In the result these appeals by the assessee and revenue stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 232/NAG/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Jan 2017AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Alok Bha gatFor Respondent: Shri A.R. Ninawe
Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

capital of Rs.6 crore and deposit of RS.285 crore and having 1,21,855 members of the society. Some of them give deposit and some ot them get credit facility for house property. The proposed aeniel u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) would seriously frustrate the teqisletive intention for which the said subsection is on record for decades of the' coming

ITO, WARD-6(1),, NAGPUR vs. THE VIDARBHA PREMIER CO-OP. HOUSING SOCIETY,, NAGPUR

In the result these appeals by the assessee and revenue stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 224/NAG/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Jan 2017AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Alok Bha gatFor Respondent: Shri A.R. Ninawe
Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

capital of Rs.6 crore and deposit of RS.285 crore and having 1,21,855 members of the society. Some of them give deposit and some ot them get credit facility for house property. The proposed aeniel u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) would seriously frustrate the teqisletive intention for which the said subsection is on record for decades of the' coming