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 801Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai97Delhi29Guwahati15Ahmedabad13Kolkata11Chandigarh10Bangalore7Indore5Jaipur4Hyderabad4Pune4Jodhpur3Lucknow1Chennai1

Key Topics

Section 80I8Section 1546Section 143(1)5Deduction4Section 139(1)3Section 1393Addition to Income3Section 143(3)2Section 1432Section 250

EMPIRE DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 3(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 730/PUN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.730/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Empire Developers & V The Income Tax Officer, Builders, S Ward-3(1),Pune. Krishna Dham, 117+121/4B, Lane No.12, Prabhat Road, Pune – 411004. Maharashtra. Pan: Aabfe4291N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Ms.Vaishnavi Badwe – Ar Revenue By Shri Ratnakar Shelake – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 01/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 20/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] For A.Y.2011-12 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act On 23/01/2025 Emanating From The Order U/S.154 Dated 07/01/2019 Of The Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Ld. Ao Erred In Law & In Facts In Determining The Income Of The Appellant At Rs.35,01,876/-Instead Of Nil As Per The Return Of

Section 111a(2)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 142Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250
2
Business Income2
House Property2
Section 801B
Section 80I

801B of the IT Act which is beyond the scope of sec 143(1) of the IT Act and the Hon. CIT(A) erred in confirming the same and completely ignoring the fact that the action of the LD AO is beyond the scope of sec 143(1). 3. The Ld AO erred in facts and in law in invoking

SKYLINE DEVELOPERS,PUNE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD4(50, PUNE

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

ITA 709/PUN/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jan 2026AY 2006-07

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.709/Pun/2023 Assessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 80I

gained from filing 3 Skyline Developers the appeal with a delay. We therefore in light of judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107 and in the case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382) condone

M/S. COSMOPOLIS CONSTRUCTION,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(1),, PUNE

The appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 230/PUN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Sept 2018AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Neelesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal
Section 32Section 80I

Capital Gain. Thus, any income arising from business asset has to be assessed under the head Business Income and not under any other head. The ld. AR submitted that the Hon‟ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Gujarat Ginning & Manufacturing Company Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported as 205 ITR 314 has held that whether property should

M/S. COSMOPOLIS CONSTRUCTION,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(1),, PUNE

The appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 231/PUN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Sept 2018AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Neelesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal
Section 32Section 80I

Capital Gain. Thus, any income arising from business asset has to be assessed under the head Business Income and not under any other head. The ld. AR submitted that the Hon‟ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Gujarat Ginning & Manufacturing Company Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported as 205 ITR 314 has held that whether property should