BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI 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.

4 results for “capital gains”+ Section 260Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi465Karnataka152Mumbai146Calcutta120Kolkata86Chennai62Telangana42Bangalore29Jaipur24SC22Ahmedabad22Nagpur17Lucknow13Indore9Raipur7Surat7Hyderabad6Kerala6Punjab & Haryana5Amritsar5Agra4Pune4Jodhpur3Allahabad3Orissa3Dehradun2Visakhapatnam2Panaji1Cochin1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 270A8Section 286Section 54F4Disallowance3Section 143(1)(a)2Section 143(2)2Section 270A(6)(a)2Section 1312Section 270A(9)2Penalty

PRAKASH RAGHUNATH MANJARKAR,,SATARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SATARA CIRCLE , , SATARA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1990/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani
Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 54F

capital gains on 30-09-2013. The Land record officer, Satara dismissed stay request of Mr. Balkrishna Manjarkar for the development work to be commenced at S. No. 87/A/10+11+12 on 21-11-2013. There were change of FSI rules. The Land record officer, Satara dismissed appeal filed by Mr. Balkrishna Manjarkar and others based on merits

MADHAV PANDHARINATH KANDE,,LATUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER ,,

2
TDS2
Capital Gains2

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2584/PUN/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteshri Madhav Pandharinath The Income Tax Officer Kande Ward -3 Vs. A/P Dhanora, Tal. Ahmedpur Latur Latur 413515 Pan – Cbwpp1670A Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri Bharat Shah Respondent By: Shri S.P. Walimbe Date Of Hearing: 25.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.04.2022 O R D E R Per S.S. Godara, Jm This Assessee’S Appeal For Ay 2013-14 Is Against The Order Of The Cit(A) 2, Aurangabad Dated 04.07.2017 Passed In Case No. Pn/Cit (A)-2/Set Aside/Pn/66/2011-12.755 Involving Proceedings Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Short The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Bharat ShahFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe
Section 143(3)Section 23Section 23(1)Section 23(2)Section 28Section 34Section 45Section 56(2)(viii)

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in short the Act. Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. The assessee’s sole substantive grievance pleaded in the instant appeal challenges both the lower authorities’ action treating its interest income on enhanced land acquisition compensation of Rs.1,64,96,146/- as taxable under Section 56(2)(viii) r.w.s. 145A

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NASHIK vs. CHAKRAHAR CONTRACTORS AND ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JALGAON

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are

ITA 1940/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Dec 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 131Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 270ASection 270A(3)(i)Section 270A(6)(a)Section 270A(9)

capital expenditure of Rs.1,42,54,268/-. In our considered view there is no intentional misrepresentation of expenditure as alleged. By no stretch of imagination it can be said to be a case of attempted tax evasion as even after revision of computation, the taxable income remained Nil which is same as returned income of the assessee. In the assessment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NASHIK vs. CHAKRADHAR CONTRACTORS AND ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JALGAON

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are

ITA 1939/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 131Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 270ASection 270A(3)(i)Section 270A(6)(a)Section 270A(9)

capital expenditure of Rs.1,42,54,268/-. In our considered view there is no intentional misrepresentation of expenditure as alleged. By no stretch of imagination it can be said to be a case of attempted tax evasion as even after revision of computation, the taxable income remained Nil which is same as returned income of the assessee. In the assessment