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.

37 results for “capital gains”+ Section 40A(9)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai399Delhi393Bangalore128Ahmedabad104Kolkata98Chennai92Jaipur77Hyderabad69Raipur39Pune37Chandigarh37Cochin33Indore30Visakhapatnam28Surat12Cuttack12Lucknow10Rajkot8Amritsar7Karnataka6SC5Guwahati4Calcutta3Patna2Jabalpur1Allahabad1Dehradun1Agra1Jodhpur1Nagpur1

Key Topics

Section 153A35Section 143(3)33Section 143(2)30Addition to Income22Section 40A(3)14Disallowance13Section 13212Search & Seizure12Business Income10

SANGEETA BASAVRAJ MANGRULE,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, AURANGABAD

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 706/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Aug 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 143(3)

capital gain. The authorities held that the assessee had not tendered cogent evidence to explain as to how the shares in an unknown company worth Rs.5/- had jumped to Rs.485/- in no time. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that the fantastic sale price was not at all possible as there was no economic or financial basis

RAMESH G PORWAL,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

Showing 1–20 of 37 · Page 1 of 2

Exemption9
Section 132(4)7
Section 407
ITA 1727/PUN/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Mar 2018AY 2005-06

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

For Appellant: Shri R.G. NaharFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Vivek Aggarwal
Section 143(3)Section 14A

9 to the submissions dated 12.11.2007 showed that out of 123 total capital gains transactions, the delivery of only 25 shares had been given through the appellant's own demat account and the remaining deliveries had been given through the demat account of the broker. I am inclined to agree with the AO's conclusion that the unwillingness to take

ITO, WARD-1(1), SOLAPUR, SOLAPUR vs. MS. KSHIRSAGAR FABRICS, SOLAPUR

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

ITA 97/PUN/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Sept 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)

9. The Ld. DR drew the attention of the Bench to the objection raised by the audit party which reads as under: “Subject:- Incorrect computation of business income. As per Section 40A(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961, where the assessee incurs any expenditure in respect of which a payment or aggregate of payment made to a person

GERA DEVELOPMENTS PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. ASST. CIT, CIRCLE 1(2), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 597/PUN/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Jun 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 597/Pun/2013 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Nilesh Khandelwal & Shri Rajiv ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi, JCIT
Section 133ASection 154Section 69

9. Mckinsey Knowledge Centre Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT 183 TTJ 553 (Delhi Trib.) In fact, this issue is raised by the Ld. DR for the first time before the Tribunal. Ld.DR is of the opinion that the undisclosed cash payments attracts the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act. E. Further, assessee submitted that, even if the ground raised

DY. CIT, CIRCLE 1(2), PUNE vs. GERA DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 767/PUN/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Jun 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 597/Pun/2013 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Nilesh Khandelwal & Shri Rajiv ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi, JCIT
Section 133ASection 154Section 69

9. Mckinsey Knowledge Centre Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT 183 TTJ 553 (Delhi Trib.) In fact, this issue is raised by the Ld. DR for the first time before the Tribunal. Ld.DR is of the opinion that the undisclosed cash payments attracts the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act. E. Further, assessee submitted that, even if the ground raised

GERA DEVELOPMENTS PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) -1,,

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1609/PUN/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Jun 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 597/Pun/2013 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Nilesh Khandelwal & Shri Rajiv ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi, JCIT
Section 133ASection 154Section 69

9. Mckinsey Knowledge Centre Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT 183 TTJ 553 (Delhi Trib.) In fact, this issue is raised by the Ld. DR for the first time before the Tribunal. Ld.DR is of the opinion that the undisclosed cash payments attracts the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act. E. Further, assessee submitted that, even if the ground raised

SHABBIR HASHAM SAYYED,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, PUNE

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

ITA 947/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.947/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shabbir Hasham Sayyed, New Ashiyana Enterprises, S.No.75/2, Room No.153, Sayyed Nagar, Hadapsar, Pune-411028. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Achps9564L बनाम / V/S. Ito, Ward-14(2), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Pramod Shingte Revenue By : Mrs. Shabana Parveen सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 26.08.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 05.09.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-7, Pune Dated 08.12.2016 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under :- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned Assessing Officer Erred In Making A Disallowance Of Rs. 66,84,217/- By Invoking Provisions Of Section 40(A)(Ia) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Without Realizing The Fact That Appellant Is An Individual & This Was The First Year Of Applicability Of Provisions Of Section 44Ab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & Therefore For A.Y. 2012 - 2013 No Tax Was Deductible Under Chapter Xvii B & Therefore Provisions Of Section 40(A)(Ia) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Do Not Have Any Application In The Appellant’S Case.

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Mrs. Shabana Parveen
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 3Section 40Section 40ASection 40A(3)Section 44A

40a(ia). In view of this fact it is most humbly prayed before your honor to delete the entire addition and oblige.” 8. From the above, it is evident that there is undisputed fact that turnover of the assessee in the immediately assessment year 2011-12 is within the prescribed limits of section 44AB of the Act. The amount

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

9. The principle accepted by the Revenue for 10 earlier years and 4 subsequent years to the Assessment Years 2007-08 and 2008-09 was that the entire expenditure is to be allowed against business income and no expenditure is to be allocated to capital gains. Once this principle was accepted and consistently applied and followed, the Revenue was bound

KIRLOSKAR OIL ENGINES LTD.,,PUNE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose in the terms aforesaid

ITA 1831/PUN/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das
Section 14Section 14A

section 40A(2) and disallowed 20% increase in commission. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted the addition by following the order in earlier assessment year in assessee’s own case. The Department has assailed the findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on similar issue in assessment years 2005-06 to 2008-09 in assessee’s own case before

INDO ENTERPRISE PVT.LTD,,LATUR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2,, AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 751/PUN/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Jan 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

For Appellant: Shri Rajan R. VoraFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 263Section 297Section 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(b)

40A(2) of the Act where the assessee incurred any expenditure in respect of which payments has been made any person referred to in clause (b) of this sub section and the Assessing Officer is of the opinion that such expenditure is excessive or unreasonable having regard to the fair market value of the goods, services or facilities for which

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. DAIMLER CHRYSLER INDIA PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1325/PUN/2003[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Aug 2018AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.1381/Pun/2003 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 1998-09 वष"

For Appellant: Shri Pramod AchuthanFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 15ASection 35A

40A(3) 51,622 viii) Custom duty payable 4,15,19,739 ix) Provision for bad debts 1,08,67,587 x) Provision for write off on 19,13,60,149 material/finish goods √ xi) Excess interest provision reversed 1,72,87,043 xii) Donation 35,500 xiii) Stamp/Registration charges on 68,47,448 increase in share capital xiv) Provision

DAIMLER CHRYSLER INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1381/PUN/2003[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Aug 2018AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.1381/Pun/2003 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 1998-09 वष"

For Appellant: Shri Pramod AchuthanFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 15ASection 35A

40A(3) 51,622 viii) Custom duty payable 4,15,19,739 ix) Provision for bad debts 1,08,67,587 x) Provision for write off on 19,13,60,149 material/finish goods √ xi) Excess interest provision reversed 1,72,87,043 xii) Donation 35,500 xiii) Stamp/Registration charges on 68,47,448 increase in share capital xiv) Provision

KADIR USMAN SHAIKH,LONAVALA vs. ITO CEN.II, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 477/PUN/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Oct 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 476 & 477/Pun/2012 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Pathak &For Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das
Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153BSection 40A(3)

capital asset and not a trading asset and therefore, the provisions of section 40A(3) were not applicable and hence, the disallowance made u/s 40A(3) ought to have been deleted. 5) The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.5,23,176/- by treating the gain on sale of agricultural land as business income as against

KADIR USMAN SHAIKH,LONAVALA vs. ITO CEN.II, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 476/PUN/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Oct 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 476 & 477/Pun/2012 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Pathak &For Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das
Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153BSection 40A(3)

capital asset and not a trading asset and therefore, the provisions of section 40A(3) were not applicable and hence, the disallowance made u/s 40A(3) ought to have been deleted. 5) The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.5,23,176/- by treating the gain on sale of agricultural land as business income as against

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 1697/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

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

40A(3) since such expenses have not been claimed / debited in the books of account. It was further submitted that a plain reading of the seized documents reveal that multiple expenses have been aggregated and recorded in a single entry and thus each expense is below Rs.10,000/- although clubbed together and recorded periodically in larger amounts. Relying on various

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 1699/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

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

40A(3) since such expenses have not been claimed / debited in the books of account. It was further submitted that a plain reading of the seized documents reveal that multiple expenses have been aggregated and recorded in a single entry and thus each expense is below Rs.10,000/- although clubbed together and recorded periodically in larger amounts. Relying on various

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

40A(3) since such expenses have not been claimed / debited in the books of account. It was further submitted that a plain reading of the seized documents reveal that multiple expenses have been aggregated and recorded in a single entry and thus each expense is below Rs.10,000/- although clubbed together and recorded periodically in larger amounts. Relying on various

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 1703/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

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

40A(3) since such expenses have not been claimed / debited in the books of account. It was further submitted that a plain reading of the seized documents reveal that multiple expenses have been aggregated and recorded in a single entry and thus each expense is below Rs.10,000/- although clubbed together and recorded periodically in larger amounts. Relying on various

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 1698/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

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

40A(3) since such expenses have not been claimed / debited in the books of account. It was further submitted that a plain reading of the seized documents reveal that multiple expenses have been aggregated and recorded in a single entry and thus each expense is below Rs.10,000/- although clubbed together and recorded periodically in larger amounts. Relying on various

LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1179/PUN/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jun 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

For Appellant: Shri Dr. P. Daniel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri B. Kishore
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

capital as well as reserves and surplus. And, hence, no disallowance of interest should be made u/s. 14A of the Act. The assessee also relied upon certain case laws in support of its contention. 4. The Assessing Officer, however, has held that it is not possible to verify that the investment has been made from own fund or from borrowed