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.

13 results for “capital gains”+ Section 246Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai34Indore32Pune17Panaji13Chandigarh12Mumbai12Delhi11Jaipur10Kolkata6Hyderabad6Ahmedabad5Bangalore4Jodhpur3Agra2Raipur2Visakhapatnam1Rajkot1Patna1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)25Section 14820Section 26314Section 25011Section 143(1)10Section 246A10Reopening of Assessment10Section 253(2)9Section 139(1)9Addition to Income

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 246A
3
Deduction2
Depreciation2
Section 250
Section 253(1)
Section 37(1)

246A r.w.s. 249 of the Act before the Ld. NFAC who partly allowed the assessee’s appeal by; (a) partially vacating disallowance made u/s 14A of the Act, (b) reversing later two consecutive disallowances made towards construction of roads/temples and disallowance of additional depreciation etc. The Ld. NFAC however, after recording his independent & concurrent findings in line with the findings

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

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)

capital gain of ₹2,93,33,256/- to tax as undisclosed income vide an assessment order dt. 24/09/2021 framed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by aforestated assessment the assessee filed an appeal before Ld. NFAC on 20/10/2021, which ITAT-Panaji Page 2 of 8 Sonali Mahendra Naik Gaunekar Vs ITO ITA No.: 312/PAN/2025

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)

246A of the Act 4. before first appellate authority which was allowed vide para 5-6 which reads as under; 5. The undisputed facts of the case are that an iron ore mining lease was granted by the government of Goa to Mr. Atmaram Xembu Pai Panandikar (AXP) vide lease dated 20.04.1997, and for a period upto 21.06.2005; extended later

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)

246A of the Act 4. before first appellate authority which was allowed vide para 5-6 which reads as under; 5. The undisputed facts of the case are that an iron ore mining lease was granted by the government of Goa to Mr. Atmaram Xembu Pai Panandikar (AXP) vide lease dated 20.04.1997, and for a period upto 21.06.2005; extended later

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)

246A of the Act 4. before first appellate authority which was allowed vide para 5-6 which reads as under; 5. The undisputed facts of the case are that an iron ore mining lease was granted by the government of Goa to Mr. Atmaram Xembu Pai Panandikar (AXP) vide lease dated 20.04.1997, and for a period upto 21.06.2005; extended later

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)

246A of the Act 4. before first appellate authority which was allowed vide para 5-6 which reads as under; 5. The undisputed facts of the case are that an iron ore mining lease was granted by the government of Goa to Mr. Atmaram Xembu Pai Panandikar (AXP) vide lease dated 20.04.1997, and for a period upto 21.06.2005; extended later

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)

246A of the Act 4. before first appellate authority which was allowed vide para 5-6 which reads as under; 5. The undisputed facts of the case are that an iron ore mining lease was granted by the government of Goa to Mr. Atmaram Xembu Pai Panandikar (AXP) vide lease dated 20.04.1997, and for a period upto 21.06.2005; extended later

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)

246A of the Act 4. before first appellate authority which was allowed vide para 5-6 which reads as under; 5. The undisputed facts of the case are that an iron ore mining lease was granted by the government of Goa to Mr. Atmaram Xembu Pai Panandikar (AXP) vide lease dated 20.04.1997, and for a period upto 21.06.2005; extended later

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)

246A of the Act 4. before first appellate authority which was allowed vide para 5-6 which reads as under; 5. The undisputed facts of the case are that an iron ore mining lease was granted by the government of Goa to Mr. Atmaram Xembu Pai Panandikar (AXP) vide lease dated 20.04.1997, and for a period upto 21.06.2005; extended later

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)

246A of the Act 4. before first appellate authority which was allowed vide para 5-6 which reads as under; 5. The undisputed facts of the case are that an iron ore mining lease was granted by the government of Goa to Mr. Atmaram Xembu Pai Panandikar (AXP) vide lease dated 20.04.1997, and for a period upto 21.06.2005; extended later

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)

246A of the Act 4. before first appellate authority which was allowed vide para 5-6 which reads as under; 5. The undisputed facts of the case are that an iron ore mining lease was granted by the government of Goa to Mr. Atmaram Xembu Pai Panandikar (AXP) vide lease dated 20.04.1997, and for a period upto 21.06.2005; extended later

M/S SOVA,PANAJI vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANAJI

The appeal of the assessee is PARTLY ALLOWED in aforestated terms

ITA 24/PAN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji10 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Years: 2018-19 M/S Sova Salgaocar Bhavan, Altinho, Panaji, Goa-403001. Pan: Aacfs8862Q . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Panaji, Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent

For Appellant: Mr Sukhsagar Syal [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr M Satish [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 253(1)Section 263Section 56

gain of business ITAT-Panaji Page 2 of 20 M/s Sova Vs PCIT ITA No. 024/PAN/2024 AY: 2018-19 profession [‘PGBP’] were disallowed and (ii) receipt/credit representing (a) reimbursement of extraction cost incurred ₹4,42,48,443/-, (b) credit balances written off ₹14,03,127/-, (c) interest on bank deposits ₹16,39,202/- & (d) interest on tax-refund