Search: capital gains | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

13 results for “capital gains”+ Reopening of Assessmentclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,127 Delhi600 Chennai392 Ahmedabad351 Jaipur285 Kolkata199 Bangalore181 Hyderabad176 Pune139 Chandigarh115 Indore114 Surat99 Cochin99 Raipur91 Rajkot78 Nagpur73 Visakhapatnam48 Patna39 Lucknow37 Agra31 Guwahati31 Amritsar27 Cuttack17 Jodhpur16 Dehradun13 Panaji13 Ranchi10 Jabalpur8 Varanasi5 Allahabad2

Key Topics

Section 14824 Section 143(3)18 Section 25014 Reopening of Assessment12 Section 14711 Section 253(2)9 Section 143(1)9 Section 139(1)9 Section 246A9 Addition to Income

MAHENDRA PURUSHOTTAM NAIK GAUNEKAR,PANAJI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PANAJI

Accordingly. The ground thus stands allowed

ITA 12/PAN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji01 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Rahul Sarda [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Capt. Pradeep Arya [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253(1)Section 50CSection 50C(1)

reopened for re-assessing difference of capital gain arising out of deviation in the value of sale consideration recorded/shown vis-à-vis stamp

4

Undisclosed Income3

Natural Justice3

SONALI MAHENDRA NAIK GAUNEKAR,PANAJI vs. ASST. UNIT, NFAC, I. T. DEPARTMENT, DELHI

The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 312/PAN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji27 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Rahul Sarda [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Naveen Kumar [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253(1)Section 263Section 50CSection 50C(1)

reopened for re- assessing difference of capital gain arising out of deviation in the value of sale consideration recorded/shown vis-à-vis stamp

SONALI MAHENDRA NAIK GAUNEKAR,PANAJI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(1), PANAJI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 313/PAN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji28 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Rahul Sarda [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Renga Rajan [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253(1)Section 263Section 50C

reopened for re-assessing difference of capital gain arising out of deviation in sale consideration recorded/shown vis-à-vis stamp

RANJANA NAIK MIRSANGKAR,BEGIM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1), PANAJI

ITA 145/PAN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji04 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 145/Pan/2024 Assessment Year : 2015-16 Ranjana Naik Mirsangkar H.No. 614, Walkeshwar Wada, Betim, Bardez, North Goa, Goa Pan : Aldpn9981B . . . . . . . Applicant V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr Rahul Sarda [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr M Satish [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 25/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 04/03/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; The Captioned Appeal Of The Assessee Impugns Din & Order Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1064227170(1) Dt. 19/04/2024 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Nfac’ Hereinafter] U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereinafter] Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Order Of Assessment Dt. 16/03/2023 Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act By The National Faceless E-Asstt Centre [‘Ld. Ao’ Hereinafter] Anent To Assessment Year 2015-16 [‘Ay’ Hereinafter].

For Appellant: Mr Rahul Sarda [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr M Satish [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)

assessment year 2015-16 [‘AY’ hereinafter]. ITAT-Panaji Page 1 of 4 Ranjana Naik Mirsangkar Vs ITO ITA Nos.145/PAN/2024 AY: 2015-16 2. Tersely stated facts of the case are that; the assessee is an individual and was identified as non-filer. Upon the receipt of information after recording reasons & obtaining prior approval from the competent authority the case

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, MARGAO vs. SHRI ROHAN RAMCHANDRA PAI PANANDIKAR, MARGAO

Accordingly. The grounds accordingly stands partly allowed

ITA 255/PAN/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji25 Feb 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr R K Pikale [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Narendra Reddy [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 253(2)

reopening sought vide letter dt. 12/04/2017 by the assessee was supplied and the objections raised thereagainst vide letter dt. 22/11/2017 was also disposed off by the Ld. AO vide separate order dt. 29/11/2017. The case of the assessee was then taken up for scrutiny and the consequential assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was passed wherein an undisclosed amount

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2, MARGAO vs. SHRI SHANU PAI PANANDIKAR (HUF), MARGAO

Accordingly. The grounds accordingly stands partly allowed

ITA 285/PAN/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji25 Feb 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr R K Pikale [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Narendra Reddy [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 253(2)

reopening sought vide letter dt. 12/04/2017 by the assessee was supplied and the objections raised thereagainst vide letter dt. 22/11/2017 was also disposed off by the Ld. AO vide separate order dt. 29/11/2017. The case of the assessee was then taken up for scrutiny and the consequential assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was passed wherein an undisclosed amount

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, MARGAO vs. SHRI ROHIT RAMCHANDRA PAI PANANDIKAR, MARGAO

Accordingly. The grounds accordingly stands partly allowed

ITA 254/PAN/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji25 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr R K Pikale [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Narendra Reddy [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 253(2)

reopening sought vide letter dt. 12/04/2017 by the assessee was supplied and the objections raised thereagainst vide letter dt. 22/11/2017 was also disposed off by the Ld. AO vide separate order dt. 29/11/2017. The case of the assessee was then taken up for scrutiny and the consequential assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was passed wherein an undisclosed amount

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3, MARGAO vs. SMT RAJANI RAMCHANDRA PAI PANANDIUKAAR, MARGAO

Accordingly. The grounds accordingly stands partly allowed

ITA 257/PAN/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji25 Feb 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr R K Pikale [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Narendra Reddy [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 253(2)

reopening sought vide letter dt. 12/04/2017 by the assessee was supplied and the objections raised thereagainst vide letter dt. 22/11/2017 was also disposed off by the Ld. AO vide separate order dt. 29/11/2017. The case of the assessee was then taken up for scrutiny and the consequential assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was passed wherein an undisclosed amount

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, MARGAO vs. SHRI ROHIT RAMCHANDRA PAI PANANDIKAR, MARGAO

Accordingly. The grounds accordingly stands partly allowed

ITA 253/PAN/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji25 Feb 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr R K Pikale [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Narendra Reddy [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 253(2)

reopening sought vide letter dt. 12/04/2017 by the assessee was supplied and the objections raised thereagainst vide letter dt. 22/11/2017 was also disposed off by the Ld. AO vide separate order dt. 29/11/2017. The case of the assessee was then taken up for scrutiny and the consequential assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was passed wherein an undisclosed amount

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2, MARGAO vs. SMT KUNDA SHANU PAI PANANDIKAR, MARGAO

Accordingly. The grounds accordingly stands partly allowed

ITA 288/PAN/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji25 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr R K Pikale [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Narendra Reddy [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 253(2)

reopening sought vide letter dt. 12/04/2017 by the assessee was supplied and the objections raised thereagainst vide letter dt. 22/11/2017 was also disposed off by the Ld. AO vide separate order dt. 29/11/2017. The case of the assessee was then taken up for scrutiny and the consequential assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was passed wherein an undisclosed amount

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, MARGAO vs. SHRI ROHAN RAMCHANDRA PAI PANANDIKAR, MARGAO

Accordingly. The grounds accordingly stands partly allowed

ITA 256/PAN/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji25 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr R K Pikale [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Narendra Reddy [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 253(2)

reopening sought vide letter dt. 12/04/2017 by the assessee was supplied and the objections raised thereagainst vide letter dt. 22/11/2017 was also disposed off by the Ld. AO vide separate order dt. 29/11/2017. The case of the assessee was then taken up for scrutiny and the consequential assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was passed wherein an undisclosed amount

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3, MARGAO vs. SHRI RAJ SHANU PAI PANANDIKAR, MARGAO

Accordingly. The grounds accordingly stands partly allowed

ITA 287/PAN/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji25 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr R K Pikale [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Narendra Reddy [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 253(2)

reopening sought vide letter dt. 12/04/2017 by the assessee was supplied and the objections raised thereagainst vide letter dt. 22/11/2017 was also disposed off by the Ld. AO vide separate order dt. 29/11/2017. The case of the assessee was then taken up for scrutiny and the consequential assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was passed wherein an undisclosed amount

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2, MARGAO vs. SHRI SHANU PAI PANANDIKAR (HUF), MARGAO

Accordingly. The grounds accordingly stands partly allowed

ITA 286/PAN/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji25 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr R K Pikale [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Narendra Reddy [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 253(2)

reopening sought vide letter dt. 12/04/2017 by the assessee was supplied and the objections raised thereagainst vide letter dt. 22/11/2017 was also disposed off by the Ld. AO vide separate order dt. 29/11/2017. The case of the assessee was then taken up for scrutiny and the consequential assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was passed wherein an undisclosed amount