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.

58 results for “capital gains”+ Section 13(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,550Delhi1,964Chennai710Bangalore552Jaipur524Ahmedabad506Hyderabad473Kolkata345Chandigarh273Pune256Indore241Cochin156Raipur154Surat144Nagpur136Rajkot122Visakhapatnam105Lucknow77Amritsar76Panaji58Patna41Dehradun41Guwahati38Cuttack37Agra33Ranchi33Jodhpur32Jabalpur21Allahabad13Varanasi6

Key Topics

Section 143(3)29Condonation of Delay29Section 14821Disallowance16Section 26315Section 25014Section 80P(2)(a)13Section 80P(2)(d)13Deduction13

GUALA CLOSURES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,PANAJI vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANAJI., SELECT CITY

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 205/PAN/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VedFor Respondent: Shri P.S. Shivshankar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144(3)Section 144CSection 253Section 263Section 4

capital or revenue. The 'once for all' payment test is also inconclusive. What is relevant is the purpose of the outlay and its intended object and effect, considered in a commonsense way having regard to the business realities." (p. 379) 8 ITA.No.205/PAN./2019 In the case of this assessee, it is found that the claim of expenses under

Showing 1–20 of 58 · Page 1 of 3

Section 143(1)11
Reopening of Assessment11
Section 246A10

UMICORE AUTOCAT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ( ORIGINAL APPELLANT UMICORE ANANDEYA (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED),ZUARINAGAR, GOA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2,, MARGAO

In the result, the appeal for the A

ITA 118/PAN/2019[2009-10 ]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji05 Oct 2023

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.118 & 119/Pan/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

Section 2(47)Section 47

capital gain of Rs.2.96 crore and odd on conversion of partnership firm into a Private Limited Company under Part IX of the Companies Act, 1956. This being a legal ground, going to the root of the matter, is admitted for disposal on merits. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that there was a partnership firm with

UMICORE AUTOCAT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ( ORIGINAL APPELLANT UMICORE ANANDEYA (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED),ZUARINAGAR, GOA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2,, MARGAO

In the result, the appeal for the A

ITA 119/PAN/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji05 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.118 & 119/Pan/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

Section 2(47)Section 47

capital gain of Rs.2.96 crore and odd on conversion of partnership firm into a Private Limited Company under Part IX of the Companies Act, 1956. This being a legal ground, going to the root of the matter, is admitted for disposal on merits. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that there was a partnership firm with

BANDEKAR BROTHERS PRIVATE LIMITED,VASCO-DA-GAMA, GOA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANAJI, GOA

The appeal of the assessee is PARTLY ALLOWED in aforestated terms

ITA 38/PAN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji11 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Years: 2013-14 Bandekar Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Post Box No. 11, Suvarna Bandekar Bldg., Swatantra Path, Vasco-Da-Gama Goa-403802 Pan: Aaacb5502B . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Panaji, Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Represented Assessee By: Mr Pramod & Mr Shriniwas Deshpande [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By: Mr M Satish & Mr Renga Rajan [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 12/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 11/02/2026 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; This Assessee’S Appeal Filed U/S 253(1) Of The Income-

For Appellant: Mr Pramod & Mr Shriniwas Deshpande [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr M Satish & Mr Renga Rajan [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(14)Section 246ASection 250Section 253(1)Section 37(1)

gains under the provisions of the Act when transferred. Once the nature & character of transaction is established as capital acquisition, then; (a) the mode/nomenclature of payment in acquiring such capital asset, (b) the frequency of payment such as annual, term basis or onetime etc., and (c) the stage of discharge of payment towards viz; first instance/grant of licence

M/S R. S. SHETYE & BROS,PANAJI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1), PANAJI

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

ITA 37/PAN/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji27 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. No.37/Pan/2023 (A.Y.2016-17) R.S.Shetye & Bros, Vs Acit 1(1), Flat.No.14, 1 St Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, . Trionara Apartments, Edc, Patto, New Muncipal Market, Panjim Panaji- Goa-403001. Goa-403001. Pan .No.Aabfr9785N (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

Section 3

3) renewal of lease did bring no new capital asset into existence for appellant, that is to say renewal of mining lease cannot be equated with acquisition of capital asset. Without prejudice to above claim, the appellant in its solitary ground of appeals, tendered an alternate claim for consequential depreciation u/s 32 of the Act, if same is held

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)

capital gains (Long Term) of Rs. 2,93,33,256 being the difference between the stamp duty value of Rs. 14,32,37,500 adopted by him and actual sale consideration of Rs. 11,39,04,244 although it was legally impermissible for the assessing officer to adopt the above stamp duty value

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

capital gain of ₹2,93,33,256/- to tax as undisclosed income vide an assessment order dt. 29/09/2021 framed u/s 147 of the Act. Subsequently, the Ld. PCIT invoked the provisions of section 263 and by order dt. 19/04/2024 set-aside the former order for fresh assessment for Ld. AO’s failure to conduct inquiry. ITAT-Panaji Page

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)

13 as Capital Gain since during the year under consideration for ITAT-Panaji Page 8 of 12 Panandikar Group ITA Nos.253 to 258 & 285 to 288/PAN/2019 AY 2011-12 and AY 2012-13 there were actual transfer of shares. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case order of the Ld. CIT(A) is not acceptable since prosecution complaint

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)

13 as Capital Gain since during the year under consideration for ITAT-Panaji Page 8 of 12 Panandikar Group ITA Nos.253 to 258 & 285 to 288/PAN/2019 AY 2011-12 and AY 2012-13 there were actual transfer of shares. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case order of the Ld. CIT(A) is not acceptable since prosecution complaint

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)

13 as Capital Gain since during the year under consideration for ITAT-Panaji Page 8 of 12 Panandikar Group ITA Nos.253 to 258 & 285 to 288/PAN/2019 AY 2011-12 and AY 2012-13 there were actual transfer of shares. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case order of the Ld. CIT(A) is not acceptable since prosecution complaint

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)

13 as Capital Gain since during the year under consideration for ITAT-Panaji Page 8 of 12 Panandikar Group ITA Nos.253 to 258 & 285 to 288/PAN/2019 AY 2011-12 and AY 2012-13 there were actual transfer of shares. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case order of the Ld. CIT(A) is not acceptable since prosecution complaint

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)

13 as Capital Gain since during the year under consideration for ITAT-Panaji Page 8 of 12 Panandikar Group ITA Nos.253 to 258 & 285 to 288/PAN/2019 AY 2011-12 and AY 2012-13 there were actual transfer of shares. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case order of the Ld. CIT(A) is not acceptable since prosecution complaint

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)

13 as Capital Gain since during the year under consideration for ITAT-Panaji Page 8 of 12 Panandikar Group ITA Nos.253 to 258 & 285 to 288/PAN/2019 AY 2011-12 and AY 2012-13 there were actual transfer of shares. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case order of the Ld. CIT(A) is not acceptable since prosecution complaint

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)

13 as Capital Gain since during the year under consideration for ITAT-Panaji Page 8 of 12 Panandikar Group ITA Nos.253 to 258 & 285 to 288/PAN/2019 AY 2011-12 and AY 2012-13 there were actual transfer of shares. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case order of the Ld. CIT(A) is not acceptable since prosecution complaint

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)

13 as Capital Gain since during the year under consideration for ITAT-Panaji Page 8 of 12 Panandikar Group ITA Nos.253 to 258 & 285 to 288/PAN/2019 AY 2011-12 and AY 2012-13 there were actual transfer of shares. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case order of the Ld. CIT(A) is not acceptable since prosecution complaint

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)

13 as Capital Gain since during the year under consideration for ITAT-Panaji Page 8 of 12 Panandikar Group ITA Nos.253 to 258 & 285 to 288/PAN/2019 AY 2011-12 and AY 2012-13 there were actual transfer of shares. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case order of the Ld. CIT(A) is not acceptable since prosecution complaint

M/S SHIRAGAO PRATHAMIK KRISHI PATTIN SAHAKARI BANK NIYAMIT,BELAGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(3), BELAGAVI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 8/PAN/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji25 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri S. Gadadi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri N. Shrikant
Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

13, arises against the CIT(A), Belagavi’s order dated 29.11.2017, passed in case ITA.No.154/CIT(A)/BGM/2014-15, in proceedings u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act"). Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. It emerges during the course of hearing that the assessee’s instant appeal suffers from 351 days delay

SHREE MAHILA CREDIT SOUHARD SAHAKARI SANGH NIYAMIT,BELAGAVI vs. ITO WARD 1 BELAGAVI, BELAGAVI

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

ITA 116/PAN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. No.116/Pan/2024 (A.Y. 2017-18) Shree Mahila Credit Souhard Vs Ito-Ward-2, Sahakari Sangh Niyamit, Feroj Khimjibhai Cpx, . Shop.No.3, Maruti Complex, Civil Hospital Road 2 Nd Railway Gate, Tilakwadi, Belagavi-590001. Belgaum-500006, Karnataka. Karnataka. . Pan .No. Aabas9244A (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By Shri.Pramod Y Vaidya.Ar Revenue By Smt.Rijula Uniyal.Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 09.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 13.02.2026 Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assesse Against The Order Of The Nfac/Cit(A) Passed U/Sec 143(3) & U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Grounds Of Appeal Challenging The Order Of The Cit(A) Partially Sustaining The Denial Of Claim Of Deduction U/Sec80P(2)(A)(I) Of The Act Made By The Assessing Officer & Without Prejudice Alternate Relief U/Sec80P(2)(D) Of The Act & Sustaining Denial Of Deduction Of Interest On Income Tax Refund Under Section 80P(2)(A)(I) Of The Act.

Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

capital available in the process of carrying out providing credit facilities which is the business of the assessee. As per specific clause of the governing law and bye laws the amounts are invested in Co-operative Credit societies, Co-operative Banks and Scheduled Banks. Investments in scheduled banks are made on account of commercial expediency of quick liquidity whenever

THE BRAHMALING MULTIPURPOSE CO-OP SOCIETY LTD,BELGAUM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -3, BELGAUM

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

ITA 254/PAN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji22 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE (Judicial Member)

Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

3) of the Act, dated 31.08.2017." 8. Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in case of Pr. CIT & Anr.Vs. Totgar's Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. (2017) 292 ITR 74 (Kar.) and Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in case of State Bank of India vs. CIT 12 ITA. No..254/PAN/2025 The Bramhaling Multi Purpose Co-Op Society Limited

VPK URBAN CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY,MARDOL, PONDA vs. DCIT/ACIT, NEAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and twenty eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose in aforestated terms

ITA 287/PAN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji28 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

13 of 36 Akshaya Co-Op credit society Limited & others. parked as investments/deposits with cooperative banks, other than a Primary Agricultural Credit Society or a Primary Co- operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank. Observing, that the co- operative banks from where the assessee was in receipt of interest income were not co-operative societies