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.

59 results for “capital gains”+ Section 282(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai436Delhi300Bangalore229Kolkata116Karnataka108Jaipur101Chennai79Ahmedabad67Panaji64Pune59Hyderabad54Chandigarh37Indore33Cochin30Amritsar28Raipur28Surat24Calcutta19Rajkot16Lucknow13Telangana11Cuttack10Nagpur9Agra7Visakhapatnam6Jodhpur5Patna5SC5Allahabad4Jabalpur3Rajasthan3Kerala2Punjab & Haryana1Andhra Pradesh1Varanasi1Ranchi1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)47Addition to Income45Section 26333Section 14831Section 12A23Disallowance22Section 14721Section 80P(2)(a)19Section 143(2)18Deduction

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE -5, PUNE vs. SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA PVT LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 323/PUN/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Sept 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwallaFor Respondent: Shri J. P. Chadraker
Section 10ASection 14ASection 35Section 35(1)

282 ITR 445 (Bom.) and CIT vs. Zuari Finance Ltd., 271 ITR 538 (Bom.). 18. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The issue in the present ground of appeal no.3 relates to the allowability of foreign travel expenditure incurred by employees of the assessee company. During the previous year relevant to the assessment year under

M/S. SUNNYGOLD WINERIES PRIVATE LTD.,,PUNE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Showing 1–20 of 59 · Page 1 of 3

17
Section 143(1)16
Reassessment16

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

ITA 703/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.703/Pun/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Sunil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT DR
Section 38

282 (Mad.), Ld. DR submitted that once the possession of the property is partly or fully handed over to the buyer, the provisions of section 2(47)(v) r.w.s. 45 of the Act are met and transfer is completed. He also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia

AGRA OBSTETRICAL AND GYNAECOLOGICAL SOCIETY,AGRA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL, PUNE

ITA 549/PUN/2023[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Mar 2025AY 2022-23
Section 12A

282 that it is a :\n\"Well-known principle of law that the provisions of an Act of\nParliament shall not be evaded by shift or contrivance\"\nAnd that \"To carry out effectually the object of a Statute, it must be\nconstrued as to defeat all attempts to do, or avoid doing, in an\nindirect or circuitous manner that which

M.M. PATEL PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST,SOLAPUR vs. PCIT- CENTRAL, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1130/PUN/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Feb 2025
Section 12Section 127Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

gains of\nbusiness which is not incidental to the attainment of its objectives\nor separate books of account are not maintained by such trust or\ninstitution in respect of the business which is incidental to the\nattainment of its objectives; or\n(c) the trust or institution has applied any part of its income from\nthe property held under

SHRI TUSHAR JAGMOHAN KAMTHE,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 14(4), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is Partly Allowed

ITA 56/PUN/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviand Dr. Dipak P. Ripote. आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.56/Pun/2020 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Tushar Jagmohan Kamthe, The Income Tax Officer, Shop No.6, Shiv Complex, V Ward-14(4), Pune. Kondhwa, Pune – 411048. S Pan: Amepk 2042 C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 28/10/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 01/11/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-9, Pune Dated 15.10.2019For The A.Y. 2013-14Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(In Short “The Act”). The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned A.O. Erred In Not Treating The Land As Agriculture Land By Disregarding Appellant’S Contention & Thereby Further Erred In Denying Exemption Claimed U/S 54B For Sum Of Rs.55,46,892/-. Your Appellant Prays For Appropriate Relief.” 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Sold A Land Along His Family Members Admeasuring 80 H.75R Situated At Yewlewadi, Tal.

Section 250Section 54B

capital gain which is not utilised by the assessee for the purchase of the new asset before the date of furnishing the return of income under section 139, shall be deposited by him before furnishing such return [such deposit being made in any case not later than the due date applicable in the case of the assessee for furnishing

AIDS SOCIETY OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), PUNE

ITA 417/PUN/2023[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Mar 2025
For Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 12A

282 that it is a :\n\"Well-known principle of law that the provisions of an Act of Parliament shall not be evaded by shift or contrivance\"\nAnd that \"To carry out effectually the object of a Statute, it must be construed as to defeat all attempts to do, or avoid doing, in an indirect or circuitous manner that which

SARIKA AMIT SANAP,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 3,, AURANGABAD

In the result, assessee‟s appeal is dismissed

ITA 77/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Aug 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani
Section 10Section 10(38)Section 131

section 68 would indicate that when any money is found to be credited in the books of the assessee it is for the assessee to prove the identity of the creditor, genuineness of the transaction and the creditworthiness. 16.3 The detailed analysis of evidences available on record clears any iota of doubt about the spurious nature of such transactions

ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI DAMJI HIRJI CHAUHAN,,

Accordingly, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1186/PUN/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Satish ChauhanFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal
Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(b)

1) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition on account of capital gain on sale of land as the said land was comprised within the jurisdiction of Naya Raipur Development Authority constituted, by a Notification by Govt. of Chhatisgarh to plan, implement and administer the Naya Raipur

ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI SATISH DAMJI CHAUHAN,,

Accordingly, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1187/PUN/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Satish ChauhanFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal
Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(b)

1) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition on account of capital gain on sale of land as the said land was comprised within the jurisdiction of Naya Raipur Development Authority constituted, by a Notification by Govt. of Chhatisgarh to plan, implement and administer the Naya Raipur

ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI DHARAMSI HIRJI CHAUHAN,,

Accordingly, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1185/PUN/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Satish ChauhanFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal
Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(b)

1) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition on account of capital gain on sale of land as the said land was comprised within the jurisdiction of Naya Raipur Development Authority constituted, by a Notification by Govt. of Chhatisgarh to plan, implement and administer the Naya Raipur

SANJAY AMRUTRAO SATAV (HUF),PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 12(4), PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesses stands allowed

ITA 200/PUN/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.200/Pun/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sanjay Amrutrao Satav Vs. Ito, Ward- 12(4), Pune. (Huf), Amrut Palace Bungalow, Gat No.12 Bhavadi Road Wagholi, Near Bhairavnath Mandir, Taluka Haveli, Pune- 412207. Pan : Aayhs1085F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Pooja Rander Revenue By : Shri Sardar Singh Meena Date Of Hearing : 29.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.06.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax- 4, Pune [‘The Pr.Cit’] Dated 31.03.2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :-

For Appellant: Smt. Pooja RanderFor Respondent: Shri Sardar Singh Meena
Section 2Section 263Section 45Section 54Section 54B

capital gains and details of investments in purchase of new agricultural land along with copies of purchase deed and the reinvestment had been made within the prescribed time lime u/s 54B of the Act. The copies of the relevant 7/12 extract of the land was filed showing that the land was used for agricultural purpose more than the immediately preceding

SURJITSINGH SEVAKSINGH BAGGA,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 6(1),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2566/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: Shri Bharat ShahFor Respondent: Shri Prashant Gadekar
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

282/-. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before Ld.CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal of assessee. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), assessee is now before us. 5. Before us, Ld.A.R. reiterated the submissions made before AO and Ld.CIT(A) and further submitted that assessee has not furnished any inaccurate particulars which is incorrect

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

section 143(3). In large number of cases we find that the above distinction is not kept in mind by the Assessing Officer. It is for this reason that we have spelt out the difference between the regular assessment and the block assessment under Chapter XIV-B.” 22. Ld. Counsel for the assessee has also referred to following decisions wherein

BVG INDIA LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 516/PUN/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Oct 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta & Sneha M. PadhiarFor Respondent: S/Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari & Abdhesh Kumar
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 153D

282 (a) of the Act of 1961, which provides that notice or other documents to be issued for the purpose of the Act of 1961 by any income-tax authority shall be deemed to be authenticated if name and designation is provided. In approval under Section 151 of the Act of 1961, name, designation and office is printed. Hence, submission

DHANOTTAM VASANT LONKAR,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3), , PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 214/PUN/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Apr 2025AY 2013-14
Section 129Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 54FSection 68

gain on conversion of\nland. Ld. AO assessed the income at Rs.3,96,34,320/-.\nThe\nassessee thereafter challenged the validity of notice issued\nu/s.143(2) of the Act as well as the validity of the assessment\nproceedings before the ld.CIT(A) making following submissions :\n\"2. APPELLANT ADDRESS:\n301 Kamala Residency, CTS NO 1050 MODEL COLONY PUNE 411016.\nThe

M/S GIRIRAJ ENTERPRISES,PUNE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 427/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 10(35)Section 132Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

capital loss despite transaction is not falling under section 94 (7) of the act holding it to be sham and fictitious transaction is devoid of any merit. Accordingly on the merits also, orders of the lower authorities are reversed and ground number 4 – 7 of the appeal are allowed.” 20. We find Jaipur Bench of the Tribunal in the case

PUNE MATHADI HAMAL AND OTHER MANUAL WORKERS BOARD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1012/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1012/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Pune Mathadihamal & Other The Income Tax Manual Workers Board, V Officer, Shramashakti Bhavan, S Ward-5(1), Pune. Coomercial Plot No.1, Market Yard, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aaalp0097L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Vipul Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari & Shri Rajesh Gawali– Dr’S Date Of Hearing 17/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27/06/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Orders Of Ld.Commissionerof Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Act Dated 14.07.2023 :

For Appellant: 2. The ld.AR submitted written submissions, relevant part of the same is reprodu
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 250

1) is only possible, if assessee is duly registered u/sec.12A of the Act. 4.5 It is also observed that Department has issued registration u/s.12AA of the Act on 02.10.2021. It is a fact that objects and activities of the assessee are same since its incorporation. 4.6 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhasoami Satsang

SULOCHANA LAXMIKANT BHALE,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), AURANGABAD

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

ITA 1594/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1594/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri B.S.Rajpurohit
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 282(1)Section 69

1) nor notice u/s.143(2). In the circumstances, the Assessing Officer vide order dated 10.12.2019 passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act completed the assessment, after making addition of Rs.11,89,000/- as appellant’s undisclosed income u/s.69 of the Act and Rs.9,26,729/- on account of capital gain arising out of sale of property. 3. Being aggrieved

RAMESHWARDAS SHIVCHARANDAS AND COMPANY ,NANDED vs. ITO WARD 1, JALNA

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

ITA 524/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.524/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra AgiwalFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh B Budruk
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 282

capital gain from sale of said land. 3. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A) placing various legal issues but on account of non-compliance ld.CIT(A) passed an exparte order and confirmed the addition made by AO without passing a speaking order. 4. Now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal

AHMEDNAGAR ZILLA GRAMSEVAKANCHI SAHAKAR PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,AHILYANAGAR vs. PCIT, PUNE-1, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1301/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Nov 2025AY 2020-21
For Appellant: \nDepartment by
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

282\n(SC)] has held that-\n\"Interest on such investments, therefore, could not fall within the meaning of\nthe expression 'profits and gains of business. Such interest income could not\nbe said to be attributable to the activities of the society, namely, carrying on\nthe business of providing credit facilities to its members or marketing of the\nagricultural produce