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.

35 results for “capital gains”+ Block Assessmentclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai780Delhi544Chennai252Bangalore204Ahmedabad140Hyderabad134Jaipur134Kolkata99Chandigarh83Surat60Raipur56Indore48Nagpur45Pune35Guwahati25Lucknow20Ranchi18Visakhapatnam15Jodhpur11Patna9Rajkot8Allahabad8Amritsar8Cochin7Jabalpur7Dehradun5Varanasi5Panaji3Cuttack2Agra2

Key Topics

Section 143(1)21Section 143(3)20Addition to Income18Section 13216Section 143(2)16Section 153A15Section 115B15Section 14710Section 2509Depreciation

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. SIDHARTH RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

ITA 1565/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Oct 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: S/Shri Suchek Anchaliya andFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

block assessment proceedings the assessee had submitted all the\nrelevant documents as asked by the Assessing Officer which included all the\ndetails with regard to the transactions carried out by the assessee in the alleged\nscrip. When all the relevant details with regard to the transactions done by the\nassessee in the alleged scrip in respect of sale and purchase

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. SIDHARTH RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

Showing 1–20 of 35 · Page 1 of 2

9
Disallowance9
Search & Seizure8
ITA 1555/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Oct 2025AY 2013-14
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

block assessment proceedings the assessee had submitted all the\nrelevant documents as asked by the Assessing Officer which included all the\ndetails with regard to the transactions carried out by the assessee in the alleged\nscrip. When all the relevant details with regard to the transactions done by the\nassessee in the alleged scrip in respect of sale and purchase

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. TARADEVI RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

ITA 497/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Oct 2025AY 2013-14
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

block assessment proceedings the assessee had submitted all the\nrelevant documents as asked by the Assessing Officer which included all the\ndetails with regard to the transactions carried out by the assessee in the alleged\nscrip. When all the relevant details with regard to the transactions done by the\nassessee in the alleged scrip in respect of sale and purchase

JAYNT VASUDEO ARADHYE,SOLAPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, SOLAPUR, SOLAPUR

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

ITA 683/PUN/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Oct 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.683/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23 Jaynt Vasudeo Aradhye, Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Solapur. Villa No.25, Indradhanu, Laxmi Peth, Vishnu Mill Compound, Solapur- 413001. Pan : Aappa8903M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Deepak Chintaman Gadgil Revenue By Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde : Date Of Hearing 06.08.2024 : Date Of Pronouncement : 21.10.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 07.02.2024 Passed By Ld. Addl./Jcit(A)-1, Coimbatore For The Assessment Year 2022-23 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “I. The Cpc Was Not Correct Both Factually & Legally In Not Considering The Claim Of Brought Forwarded Short Term Capital Loss Of Rs 27,78,028/-. 11. Section 143(1) As It Stands On The Statute Books As On Today, Does Not Permit Either Cpc Or The Ao To Make Such Adjustments As They Are Beyond The Scope Of The Said Section.

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chintaman Gadgil
Section 10Section 10ASection 115BSection 143(1)Section 155BSection 16Section 23Section 24Section 32Section 32A

gains and income from various types of investments. Since last 4 decades, the assessee is regularly assessed to income tax and is paying his taxes continuously. The return of income was e-filed timely i.e. on 30.06.2022 declaring taxable income of Rs.1,11,85,790/-. The return of income was processed by CPC and intimation u/s 143(1) dated

PRADEEP KISANLAL BOOB,NASHIK vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1, NASHIK, NASHIK

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

ITA 189/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.189/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 134Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

block of assets which ceased to exist after the sale of asset and therefore the gain from sale of such business asset is a short term capital gain u/s.50 of the Act. Since there is no dispute 4 Pradeep Kisanlal Boob to this extent, and in the details filed in the income-tax return, the gain is offered as short

NAWAB PASHASAHEB JAMADAR,LATUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, LATUR

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 731/PUN/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalआयकर अपीऱ सं. /Ita No.731/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Nawab Pashasaheb Jamadar, Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Global Panacea Hospital, Latur Gross Golden Jubilee, B-Block, Mahaeboob Nagar, Ambajogai Road, Latur – 413 512, Maharashtra Pan : Aaopj3902E Appellant Respondent

Section 250Section 50Section 50(2)Section 54

assessment year 2014-15. 2. The only issue raised herein is against the confirmation of addition of short term capital gain of Rs.31,31,850/-. 2 Nawab Pashasaheb Jamadar 3. Pithily put, the factual panorama of the case is that the assessee is a doctor running hospital in a building, which was partly (1/4th) used for residence as well

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), PUNE vs. M/S. BILCARE LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 273/PUN/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Naveen Gupta
Section 92C

gains arising from the transfer of short-term capital assets: [Provided that in a case where goodwill of a business or profession forms part of a block of asset for the assessment

M/S. BILCARE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 334/PUN/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Naveen Gupta
Section 92C

gains arising from the transfer of short-term capital assets: [Provided that in a case where goodwill of a business or profession forms part of a block of asset for the assessment

M/S BALAJI DEVELOPERS ,DHULE vs. ITO, WARD 1, DHULE, DHULE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 375/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.375/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M. JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 96

capital asset. It is out of transfer of stock in trade. Here the assessee firm has come in to existence with the motive of trading of plots This is the business of the assessee. The profit earned is also taxed as business income. Hence, exemption claimed on profit arisen on account transfer of stock in trade is not acceptable

DCIT CIRCLE 1 NASHIK, NASHIK vs. SHREE SAI PROPERTIES, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 987/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

block assessment under Chapter XIV-B.” 22. Ld. Counsel for the assessee has also referred to following decisions wherein the additions based on the documents found during the course of search in the case of Kokani Group stood deleted : i. M/s. Dhannanjay Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT – IT(SS) A. No.65/PUN/2017 and others dated 19.05.2021 ii. ACI Vs. M/s. Thakkar

SHRI MANOJ MADANLAL CHHAJED,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1)PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 725/PUN/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.91 To 96/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Central Circle- Chhajed, 1(1), Pune. 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.97 & 98/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2015-16 Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vs. Shri Manoj Madanlal Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.725/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ratan SamalFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel
Section 132(4)Section 139(1)

block assessment can be framed only on the basis of a statement recorded under Section 132(4) is accepted, it would result in ignoring an important check on the power of the AO and would expose assessees to arbitrary assessments based only on the statements, which we are conscious are sometimes extracted by exerting undue influence or by coercion. Sometimes

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(4), PUNE, SWARGATE vs. MANGAL BALASAHEB GOLE, KOTHRUD

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

ITA 1209/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: HeardITAT Pune15 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22 Ito, Ward 2(4), Pune Mangal Balasaheb Gole Vs. Pirangut, Kothrud, S.O Pune City, Pune – 411038 Affpg6617R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department By : Shri Rajesh Gawali, Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing : 11-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 15-12-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali, Addl.CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 48Section 54B

capital gain of Rs.30,35,942/-. He noted that the assessee considered the 2 cost of acquisition with indexation u/s 48 of the Act at Rs.1,51,41,000/- and Rs.3,26,45,958/- and claimed deduction u/s 54B of the Act on reinvestment in agricultural land for Rs.3,66,12,300/-. The Assessing Officer referred the matter to verification

MR KARTHIK VENKATARAMAN,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-13(4), PUNE, PUNE

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

ITA 335/PUN/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Aug 2023AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Rajesh AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Mahala
Section 143(3)Section 54

capital gains u/s 54 of the Act. The same came to be rejected by the Assessing Officer by holding that the appellant had entered into an agreement to purchase the property only on 23.06.2017 i.e. well beyond the time period of two years from the date of sale. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the NFAC, who vide

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLHPAUR vs. RBL BANK LTD, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 657/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

gain. Hence, the expenditure incurred cannot be treated asRevenue expenditure since there is a transfer of business and the amounts paid are capital in nature. The saidorder was confirmed by the First Appellate Authority. The Appellate Tribunal after re-examining the matter indetail, relying upon the various judgments of the various High Courts as well as the Supreme Court held

SHAMKANT KESHAV KOTKAR (PROP. NANDAN BUILDERS),PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1358/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 26Section 263Section 40

Capital Gain o Income from other source 7. A search action u/s.132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted at the residence of Assessee-Shamkant Keshav Kotkar along with other Nandan Group Cases on 03.02.2021. Therefore, Assessee’s case was centralized with DCIT, Central Circle-2(4), Pune by the Competent Authority. A notice u/s.153A dated 14.12.2021 for A.Y.2017-18

REXEL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

ITA 981/PUN/2024[AY 2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 May 2025
Section 32(1)Section 43(1)Section 43(6)

assessment years 2016-17, 2017-18 and\n2018-19, і.е. post amalgamation.\n22. As regards the reliance placed by the Revenue upon the sixth\nproviso to Section 32(1) of the Act. we are of the considered view that\nthe sixth proviso to Section 32(1) of the Act presupposes that there\nexists a depreciable asset in the block

SATARA ENGINEERING PROJECTS AND EQUIPMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED,SATARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, SATARA, SATARA

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

ITA 2450/PUN/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jan 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2450/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2024-25

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar &For Respondent: Shri Ganesh B. Budruk
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

gains derived from transfer of a capital asset on which no depreciation is allowable under the Act shall be computed at the rate of twenty-two per cent: Provided also that where the person fails to satisfy the conditions contained in sub-section (2) in any previous year, the option shall become invalid in respect of the assessment year relevant

SHRI MANOJ MADANLAL CHHAJED,PUNE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE

ITA 1178/PUN/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Feb 2025AY 2011-12
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

block period of six years prior to year of search as prescribed u/s 153A of the\nAct and therefore, the Assessing Officer could have issued notice u/s 153A of the\nAct only for the assessment year 2012-13 and onwards. Therefore, the only option\navailable with the Assessing Officer for assessment year 2012-13 was to reopen\nthe assessment

MANOJ MADANLAL CHHAJED,PUNE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE

ITA 2017/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Feb 2025AY 2011-12
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

block period of six years prior to year of search as prescribed u/s 153A of the\nAct and therefore, the Assessing Officer could have issued notice u/s 153A of the\nAct only for the assessment year 2012-13 and onwards. Therefore, the only option\navailable with the Assessing Officer for assessment year 2012-13 was to reopen\nthe assessment

GARWARE TECHNICAL FIBRES LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT, CC-1(3), PUNE

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1700/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: CA Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR And Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 131Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153A

Block-D-1, MIDC, Chinchwad, Pune on 14.11.2019, a pen drive was found from the cabin of the Head-Cashier Shri Shrikant S Dalvi. In the pen drive, various data including excel sheets were found wherein certain unaccounted transactions in the form of cash receipts and cash payments were mentioned. The print outs of these excel sheets found