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.

40 results for “capital gains”+ Revision u/s 263clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai787Delhi477Bangalore302Chennai260Kolkata227Jaipur204Ahmedabad157Karnataka122Indore118Pune113Chandigarh83Hyderabad82Cochin57Visakhapatnam54Surat54Rajkot49Raipur40Panaji34Nagpur27Lucknow18Cuttack18Jabalpur16Jodhpur16Amritsar13Dehradun11Agra9Patna7Guwahati6Ranchi5Telangana2Varanasi2Calcutta1Punjab & Haryana1Kerala1

Key Topics

Section 26365Section 143(3)39Section 14722Section 14821Disallowance20Depreciation17Revision u/s 26316Section 10(37)15Section 80I14Limitation/Time-bar

JAI GURUDEV INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD,BILASPUR vs. PR. CIT, BILASPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 65/RPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri N. K. Choudhryआयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A. No. 65/Rpr/2020 अपील िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16) (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Jai Gurudev Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, Principal Commissioner Of बनाम/ बनाम बनाम बनाम C-11, Netaji Complex, Jarhabhata, Income-Tax, Vs. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh Bilaspur "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccj 1895 R .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, Ca अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : 29.07.2021 सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing 14.10.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश/O R D E R Per Pradip Kumar Kedia - Am:

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT-DRFor Respondent: 29.07.2021
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43CSection 44A

Showing 1–20 of 40 · Page 1 of 2

9
Section 968
Deduction8

capital gain' of Rs.71,59,348, and thus, GTI/ 'total income' would be Rs. (-) 10,06,780; and comparing this result, the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) dt.25-4-17 wherein assessed income has been assessed at Rs.22,14,670 (which is not subjected to any appeal), cannot be, in any manner, termed as prejudicial to the interest of revenue

SAMPAT LAL JHABAK, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the captioned assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 478/RPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Begani, Advocate
Section 1Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 263

revise the order u/s. 263 of the Act. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Anindita Steel Ltd. (2022) 1387 taxmann.com 203 (Cal.) and that of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Nirav Modi

SMT. SUSHILA DEVI JHABAK, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. PCIT-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the captioned assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 235/RPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Begani, Advocate
Section 1Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 263

revise the order u/s. 263 of the Act. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Anindita Steel Ltd. (2022) 1387 taxmann.com 203 (Cal.) and that of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Nirav Modi

SANJOG JHABAK, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the captioned assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 233/RPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Begani, Advocate
Section 1Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 263

revise the order u/s. 263 of the Act. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Anindita Steel Ltd. (2022) 1387 taxmann.com 203 (Cal.) and that of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Nirav Modi

SMT. PUSHPA JHABAK, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. PCIT-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the captioned assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 237/RPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Begani, Advocate
Section 1Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 263

revise the order u/s. 263 of the Act. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Anindita Steel Ltd. (2022) 1387 taxmann.com 203 (Cal.) and that of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Nirav Modi

SANJOG JHABAK L/H OF LATE GAUTAM CHAND JHABAK, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the captioned assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 234/RPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Begani, Advocate
Section 1Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 263

revise the order u/s. 263 of the Act. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Anindita Steel Ltd. (2022) 1387 taxmann.com 203 (Cal.) and that of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Nirav Modi

SANKET JHABAK, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the captioned assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 479/RPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Begani, Advocate
Section 1Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 263

revise the order u/s. 263 of the Act. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Anindita Steel Ltd. (2022) 1387 taxmann.com 203 (Cal.) and that of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Nirav Modi

SMT. TILOTTAMA JHABAK, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. PCIT-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the captioned assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 236/RPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Begani, Advocate
Section 1Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 263

revise the order u/s. 263 of the Act. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Anindita Steel Ltd. (2022) 1387 taxmann.com 203 (Cal.) and that of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Nirav Modi

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-2(1)BHILAI, BHILAI(CG) vs. M/S SMS SHIVNATH INFRASSTRUCTURE PVT LTD., DURG, DURG(CG)

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 87/BIL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.87/Rpr/2017 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) Acit-2(1), Bhilai Vs M/S Sms Shivnath Infrastructure Pvt Ltd.,Toll Plaza, Near Dhamdhanaka, Durg. Pan No. :Aadcs 2258 Q (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.107/Rpr/2016 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) M/S Sms Shivnath Infrastructure Vs Pr.Cit-2, Raipur Pvt Ltd.,Toll Plaza, Near Dhamdhanaka, Durg. Pan No. :Aadcs 2258 Q (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Hirani, Adv. & MukeshFor Respondent: Shri Debashis Lahiri, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250(4)Section 36Section 80ISection 80l

revised return was filed on the same day declaring a total income of s. 73,66,990/- comprising of interest income and Short Term Capital Gains. Income under the head business and profession was fully claimed as deduction U/s 80lA for Rs. 19,17,84,203/-. Tax was paid U/s 115JB of the Act. The 17 ITA No.87/RPR/2017 & ITA No.107/RPR/2016

M/S SMS SHIVNATH INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD,DURG(CG) vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 107/BIL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.87/Rpr/2017 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) Acit-2(1), Bhilai Vs M/S Sms Shivnath Infrastructure Pvt Ltd.,Toll Plaza, Near Dhamdhanaka, Durg. Pan No. :Aadcs 2258 Q (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.107/Rpr/2016 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) M/S Sms Shivnath Infrastructure Vs Pr.Cit-2, Raipur Pvt Ltd.,Toll Plaza, Near Dhamdhanaka, Durg. Pan No. :Aadcs 2258 Q (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Hirani, Adv. & MukeshFor Respondent: Shri Debashis Lahiri, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250(4)Section 36Section 80ISection 80l

revised return was filed on the same day declaring a total income of s. 73,66,990/- comprising of interest income and Short Term Capital Gains. Income under the head business and profession was fully claimed as deduction U/s 80lA for Rs. 19,17,84,203/-. Tax was paid U/s 115JB of the Act. The 17 ITA No.87/RPR/2017 & ITA No.107/RPR/2016

MADANLAL LODHA,RAIPUR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR-1

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 32/RPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No: Ita 32/Rpr/2022 (Assessment Years:2017-18) Madanlal Lodha, V Pr. Commissioner Of Income Ta, C/O M/S Prakash Trading Comp. S Raipur-(I) Shop No. 109 & 110, Textile Market, Pandri, Raipur, (C.G.) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By : Shri R.B. Doshi, Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By : Shri S.K. Meena, Cit-Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 03-08-2023 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20-10-2023

For Appellant: Shri R.B. Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Meena, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68Section 96

263 and in setting aside the assessment order. The assessment order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. The revision order is illegal, arbitrary, and not sustainable. 2 ii). Ld. Pr. CIT erred in setting aside the issue of taxability of capital gain arising on compulsory acquisition of land of appellant. The capital gain is not liable

SHRI RAMDEV MANDHANI, HUF,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 3(2), RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 19/RPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri N. K. Choudhryआयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A. No. 19/Rpr/2021 अपील िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17) (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Ramdev Mandhani Huf, Income Tax Officer-3(2), बनाम/ बनाम बनाम बनाम C-295, Shailendra Nagar, Raipur Vs. Raipur, Chhattisgarh - 492001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaghr 5208 F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Shri R.B. Doshi, Ar अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : 29.07.2021 सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing 21.10.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश/O R D E R Per Pradip Kumar Kedia - Am:

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT-DRFor Respondent: 29.07.2021
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54

capital gain amounting to 2,13,70,207/- 4. Hence, there is no application of mind on the part of the AO to correctly tax the income of the assessee in the return of income and therefore, the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest

SURESH CHAND SURANA,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4(1), RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 25/RPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri N. K. Choudhryआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 25/Rpr/2021) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17)

For Appellant: Shri R. K. Singh, CIT.DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54ESection 54F

capital gains in the ratio of cost of new asset to the net consideration received on transfer is not chargeable to tax. The benefit was intended for investment in one residential house within India. Accordingly, it is proposed to amend the aforesaid sub-section (1) of section 54 so as to provide that the rollover relief under the said section

DILIP SANGOI,RAIPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 34/RPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2016-17

For Respondent: Shri R.K. Singh, CIT D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263

capital gains’ in departure with its true nature as business income. 4. It will be apt to reproduce the show cause notice for easy reference:- “NOTICE FOR THE HEARING M/s/Mr/Ms Subject: Notice for Hearing in respect of Revision proceedings u/s 263

ARVIND SANGOI,RAIPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 33/RPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2016-17

For Respondent: Shri R.K. Singh, CIT D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263

capital gains’ in departure with its true nature as business income. 4. It will be apt to reproduce the show cause notice for easy reference:- “NOTICE FOR THE HEARING M/s/Mr/Ms Subject: Notice for Hearing in respect of Revision proceedings u/s 263

M/S FOOD HEALTH PVT. LTD.,RAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR

In the result, the assessee's appeal in ITA No

ITA 37/RPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K Singh, CIT-DR
Section 10(37)Section 105Section 143(3)Section 263Section 96

capital gain of Rs.3.41 crore (approx.) on the transfer of the lands above, which were acquired u/s. NHAI Act, 1956; therefore, the order passed by him was rendered as erroneous insofar as it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue u/s. 263 of the Act. Accordingly, the Pr. CIT put the assesse company to “Show cause” and called upon

M/S HERITAGE BUILDCON PVT. LTD.,RAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR-1,, RAIPUR

In the result, the assessee's appeal in ITA No

ITA 35/RPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K Singh, CIT-DR
Section 10(37)Section 105Section 143(3)Section 263Section 96

capital gain of Rs.3.41 crore (approx.) on the transfer of the lands above, which were acquired u/s. NHAI Act, 1956; therefore, the order passed by him was rendered as erroneous insofar as it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue u/s. 263 of the Act. Accordingly, the Pr. CIT put the assesse company to “Show cause” and called upon

M/S RAIPUR REALITY PVT. LTD.,RAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR

In the result, the assessee's appeal in ITA No

ITA 36/RPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K Singh, CIT-DR
Section 10(37)Section 105Section 143(3)Section 263Section 96

capital gain of Rs.3.41 crore (approx.) on the transfer of the lands above, which were acquired u/s. NHAI Act, 1956; therefore, the order passed by him was rendered as erroneous insofar as it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue u/s. 263 of the Act. Accordingly, the Pr. CIT put the assesse company to “Show cause” and called upon

AARTI SPONGE AND POWER LTD.,RAIPUR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR - 1, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 78/RPR/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri R. B. Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Meena, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 263

capital gain income u/s 71(2) and the total income in both the cases would be same. v) Prejudice not proved, for invoking sec. 263. both "error" and "prejudice" should be proved. Consequently, revision

ANAND KUMAR BANSAL,BILASPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR -1, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 133/RPR/2025[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Raipur13 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.133/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Anand Kumar Bansal Madhya Nagari Chowk, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495 001 Pan: Ahnpb0374N

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Manisha Kinnu, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263

263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 The case was reopened u/s.147/148 of the Act for A.Y. 2013- 14 in the name of the legal heir of Shri Vishnu Prasad Agrawal. The assessment order was passed on 28.03.2022 u/s 147 read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the total income of the assessee was assessed