Search: capital gains | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases 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.

14 results for “capital gains”+ Undisclosed Incomeclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,324 Delhi1,187 Jaipur594 Chennai381 Kolkata380 Bangalore324 Hyderabad281 Ahmedabad277 Surat172 Indore164 Pune160 Chandigarh132 Cochin128 Nagpur93 Rajkot74 Raipur61 Visakhapatnam59 Amritsar55 Cuttack49 Calcutta46 Guwahati40 Lucknow37 Ranchi35 Patna29 Agra28 Karnataka22 Jodhpur21 Dehradun16 Panaji14 Allahabad14 Jabalpur8 Telangana6 Varanasi5 SC4 Orissa2 Rajasthan1 Punjab & Haryana1 Kerala1 Gauhati1 Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 14823 Section 143(3)20 Section 25012 Reopening of Assessment12 Section 1479 Section 50C9 Section 253(2)9 Section 143(1)9 Section 139(1)9

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 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. ITAT

Addition to Income5

Undisclosed Income5

Natural Justice3

SHRI LALJI PURSHOTTAM DABHOYYA PATEL,ALTINHO vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1), PANAJI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 339/PAN/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji17 Aug 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2006-07 Ito, Vs. Shri Lalji Purshottam Dabhoyya Ward 1(1), Patel, Panaji, Hill View, Althinho, Goa. Panaji, Goa- 403 001. Pan: Abapd1169Q Assessment Year: 2007-08 Shri Lalji Purshottam Vs. Acit, Dabhoyya Patel, Circle -1(1), Hill View, Althinho, Panaji, Panaji, Goa- 403 001. Goa. Pan: Abapd1169Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jitendra Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.08.2022 Order Per C.M. Garg, Jm: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Panaji-1, Dated 31.05.2018 For Assessment Year 2007-08. Ita Nos.361 & 339/Pan/2018 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Civil Contractor Carrying On The Business At Panaji, Goa. The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income Declaring The Total Income At Rs.9,02,333/-. The Ao Completed The Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act By Making The Following Additions:- I) Unexplained Cash Credit - Rs.27,33,000.00 Ii) Unconfirmed Creditors - Rs. 6,30,000.00 Iii) Depreciation Disallowance - Rs. 1,03,697.00

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. DR

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 45

undisclosed income to the tune of Rs. 2,53,89,129/- and accordingly declared the income of Rs.2,57,40,889/- in the Revised Return of Income. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to note that the admitted additional income was due to the investigations carried out by the Department u/s. 133A of the Income

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(1), PANAJI vs. SHRI LALJI PURUSHOTTAM BABHOYYA PATEL, ALTINHO

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 361/PAN/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji17 Aug 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2006-07 Ito, Vs. Shri Lalji Purshottam Dabhoyya Ward 1(1), Patel, Panaji, Hill View, Althinho, Goa. Panaji, Goa- 403 001. Pan: Abapd1169Q Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Lalji Purshottam Vs. Acit, Dabhoyya Patel, Circle -1(1), Hill View, Althinho, Panaji, Panaji, Goa- 403 001. Goa. Pan: Abapd1169Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jitendra Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.08.2022 Order Per C.M. Garg, Jm: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Panaji-1, Dated 31.05.2018 For Assessment Year 2007-08. Ita Nos.361 & 339/Pan/2018 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Civil Contractor Carrying On The Business At Panaji, Goa. The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income Declaring The Total Income At Rs.9,02,333/-. The Ao Completed The Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act By Making The Following Additions:- I) Unexplained Cash Credit - Rs.27,33,000.00 Ii) Unconfirmed Creditors - Rs. 6,30,000.00 Iii) Depreciation Disallowance - Rs. 1,03,697.00

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. DR

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 45

undisclosed income to the tune of Rs. 2,53,89,129/- and accordingly declared the income of Rs.2,57,40,889/- in the Revised Return of Income. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to note that the admitted additional income was due to the investigations carried out by the Department u/s. 133A of the Income

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

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

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)

undisclosed amount ₹12.50Lakhs received for ‘iron-ore extracted & sold’ was added & brought to tax under the head ‘Income from other source’. ITAT-Panaji Page 3 of 12 Panandikar Group ITA Nos.253 to 258 & 285 to 288/PAN/2019 Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal u/s 246A of the Act 4. before first appellate authority which was allowed vide para 5-6 which

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)

undisclosed amount ₹12.50Lakhs received for ‘iron-ore extracted & sold’ was added & brought to tax under the head ‘Income from other source’. ITAT-Panaji Page 3 of 12 Panandikar Group ITA Nos.253 to 258 & 285 to 288/PAN/2019 Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal u/s 246A of the Act 4. before first appellate authority which was allowed vide para 5-6 which

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)

undisclosed amount ₹12.50Lakhs received for ‘iron-ore extracted & sold’ was added & brought to tax under the head ‘Income from other source’. ITAT-Panaji Page 3 of 12 Panandikar Group ITA Nos.253 to 258 & 285 to 288/PAN/2019 Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal u/s 246A of the Act 4. before first appellate authority which was allowed vide para 5-6 which

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)

undisclosed amount ₹12.50Lakhs received for ‘iron-ore extracted & sold’ was added & brought to tax under the head ‘Income from other source’. ITAT-Panaji Page 3 of 12 Panandikar Group ITA Nos.253 to 258 & 285 to 288/PAN/2019 Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal u/s 246A of the Act 4. before first appellate authority which was allowed vide para 5-6 which

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)

undisclosed amount ₹12.50Lakhs received for ‘iron-ore extracted & sold’ was added & brought to tax under the head ‘Income from other source’. ITAT-Panaji Page 3 of 12 Panandikar Group ITA Nos.253 to 258 & 285 to 288/PAN/2019 Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal u/s 246A of the Act 4. before first appellate authority which was allowed vide para 5-6 which

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)

undisclosed amount ₹12.50Lakhs received for ‘iron-ore extracted & sold’ was added & brought to tax under the head ‘Income from other source’. ITAT-Panaji Page 3 of 12 Panandikar Group ITA Nos.253 to 258 & 285 to 288/PAN/2019 Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal u/s 246A of the Act 4. before first appellate authority which was allowed vide para 5-6 which

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)

undisclosed amount ₹12.50Lakhs received for ‘iron-ore extracted & sold’ was added & brought to tax under the head ‘Income from other source’. ITAT-Panaji Page 3 of 12 Panandikar Group ITA Nos.253 to 258 & 285 to 288/PAN/2019 Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal u/s 246A of the Act 4. before first appellate authority which was allowed vide para 5-6 which

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)

undisclosed amount ₹12.50Lakhs received for ‘iron-ore extracted & sold’ was added & brought to tax under the head ‘Income from other source’. ITAT-Panaji Page 3 of 12 Panandikar Group ITA Nos.253 to 258 & 285 to 288/PAN/2019 Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal u/s 246A of the Act 4. before first appellate authority which was allowed vide para 5-6 which

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)

undisclosed amount ₹12.50Lakhs received for ‘iron-ore extracted & sold’ was added & brought to tax under the head ‘Income from other source’. ITAT-Panaji Page 3 of 12 Panandikar Group ITA Nos.253 to 258 & 285 to 288/PAN/2019 Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal u/s 246A of the Act 4. before first appellate authority which was allowed vide para 5-6 which