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.

311 results for “capital gains”+ Section 10(46)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,331Delhi1,993Bangalore888Chennai646Ahmedabad547Kolkata450Jaipur437Hyderabad311Chandigarh257Indore191Pune185Karnataka172Surat151Raipur151Cochin147Visakhapatnam63Cuttack60Nagpur60Calcutta58Rajkot53Guwahati49Panaji45Lucknow44SC33Amritsar33Telangana31Ranchi23Dehradun20Jodhpur13Agra13Varanasi9Allahabad8Patna7Kerala5Rajasthan5Jabalpur2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2Orissa1Punjab & Haryana1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Addition to Income68Section 153A39Section 54F37Section 6836Section 143(3)34Deduction33Section 50C23Disallowance23Section 80I22

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. SARAT GOPAL BOPPANA, HYDERABAD

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

ITA 690/HYD/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali MohanFor Respondent: Ms. TH Vijaya Lakshmi
Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 50C

10,125 sft, the assessee family has sold 45,153 sq.ft in different years and has leased out 2,32,144 sq.ft out of the reaming built up area. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that by entering into the joint development agreement with the developer, the assessee has commercially exploited the property by carrying

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. JHANSI RANI BOPPANA, HYDERABAD

Showing 1–20 of 311 · Page 1 of 16

...
Exemption22
Capital Gains21
Section 14719

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

ITA 694/HYD/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali MohanFor Respondent: Ms. TH Vijaya Lakshmi
Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 50C

10,125 sft, the assessee family has sold 45,153 sq.ft in different years and has leased out 2,32,144 sq.ft out of the reaming built up area. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that by entering into the joint development agreement with the developer, the assessee has commercially exploited the property by carrying

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. KAVYA BOPPANA, HYDERABAD

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

ITA 696/HYD/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali MohanFor Respondent: Ms. TH Vijaya Lakshmi
Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 50C

10,125 sft, the assessee family has sold 45,153 sq.ft in different years and has leased out 2,32,144 sq.ft out of the reaming built up area. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that by entering into the joint development agreement with the developer, the assessee has commercially exploited the property by carrying

SARAT GOPAL BOPPANA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3),, HYDERABAD

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

ITA 637/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali MohanFor Respondent: Ms. TH Vijaya Lakshmi
Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 50C

10,125 sft, the assessee family has sold 45,153 sq.ft in different years and has leased out 2,32,144 sq.ft out of the reaming built up area. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that by entering into the joint development agreement with the developer, the assessee has commercially exploited the property by carrying

KAVYA BOPPANA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 642/HYD/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali MohanFor Respondent: Ms. TH Vijaya Lakshmi
Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 50C

10,125 sft, the assessee family has sold 45,153 sq.ft in different years and has leased out 2,32,144 sq.ft out of the reaming built up area. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that by entering into the joint development agreement with the developer, the assessee has commercially exploited the property by carrying

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. TARA CHAND BOPPANA, HYDERABAD

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

ITA 692/HYD/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali MohanFor Respondent: Ms. TH Vijaya Lakshmi
Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 50C

10,125 sft, the assessee family has sold 45,153 sq.ft in different years and has leased out 2,32,144 sq.ft out of the reaming built up area. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that by entering into the joint development agreement with the developer, the assessee has commercially exploited the property by carrying

SARAT GOPAL BOPPANA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 638/HYD/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali MohanFor Respondent: Ms. TH Vijaya Lakshmi
Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 50C

10,125 sft, the assessee family has sold 45,153 sq.ft in different years and has leased out 2,32,144 sq.ft out of the reaming built up area. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that by entering into the joint development agreement with the developer, the assessee has commercially exploited the property by carrying

TARA CHAND BOPPANA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 646/HYD/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali MohanFor Respondent: Ms. TH Vijaya Lakshmi
Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 50C

10,125 sft, the assessee family has sold 45,153 sq.ft in different years and has leased out 2,32,144 sq.ft out of the reaming built up area. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that by entering into the joint development agreement with the developer, the assessee has commercially exploited the property by carrying

KAKATIYA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,WARANGAL vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1725/HYD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. SandhyaFor Respondent: Shri Jeevanlal Lavidiya –
Section 25l

gain is derived would not disentitle them from the benefit of Section 10(46). 183. In this context, it would be useful to consider the judgment of the Delhi and Allahabad High Courts in Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority v Union of India[147] (hereafter "GNIDA") and CIT v Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority[148] In GNIDA (supra), the High

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD vs. KAKATIYA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1878/HYD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. SandhyaFor Respondent: Shri Jeevanlal Lavidiya –
Section 25l

gain is derived would not disentitle them from the benefit of Section 10(46). 183. In this context, it would be useful to consider the judgment of the Delhi and Allahabad High Courts in Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority v Union of India[147] (hereafter "GNIDA") and CIT v Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority[148] In GNIDA (supra), the High

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD vs. KAKATIYA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY , WARANGAL

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1877/HYD/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Dec 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. SandhyaFor Respondent: Shri Jeevanlal Lavidiya –
Section 25l

gain is derived would not disentitle them from the benefit of Section 10(46). 183. In this context, it would be useful to consider the judgment of the Delhi and Allahabad High Courts in Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority v Union of India[147] (hereafter "GNIDA") and CIT v Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority[148] In GNIDA (supra), the High

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD vs. KAKATIYA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, WARANGAL

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1879/HYD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. SandhyaFor Respondent: Shri Jeevanlal Lavidiya –
Section 25l

gain is derived would not disentitle them from the benefit of Section 10(46). 183. In this context, it would be useful to consider the judgment of the Delhi and Allahabad High Courts in Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority v Union of India[147] (hereafter "GNIDA") and CIT v Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority[148] In GNIDA (supra), the High

KAKATIYA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,WARANGAL vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1724/HYD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. SandhyaFor Respondent: Shri Jeevanlal Lavidiya –
Section 25l

gain is derived would not disentitle them from the benefit of Section 10(46). 183. In this context, it would be useful to consider the judgment of the Delhi and Allahabad High Courts in Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority v Union of India[147] (hereafter "GNIDA") and CIT v Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority[148] In GNIDA (supra), the High

KAKATIYA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,WARANGAL vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1726/HYD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. SandhyaFor Respondent: Shri Jeevanlal Lavidiya –
Section 25l

gain is derived would not disentitle them from the benefit of Section 10(46). 183. In this context, it would be useful to consider the judgment of the Delhi and Allahabad High Courts in Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority v Union of India[147] (hereafter "GNIDA") and CIT v Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority[148] In GNIDA (supra), the High

KAKATIYA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,WARANGAL vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1723/HYD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. SandhyaFor Respondent: Shri Jeevanlal Lavidiya –
Section 25l

gain is derived would not disentitle them from the benefit of Section 10(46). 183. In this context, it would be useful to consider the judgment of the Delhi and Allahabad High Courts in Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority v Union of India[147] (hereafter "GNIDA") and CIT v Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority[148] In GNIDA (supra), the High

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD vs. KAKATIYA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, WARANGAL

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1880/HYD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. SandhyaFor Respondent: Shri Jeevanlal Lavidiya –
Section 25l

gain is derived would not disentitle them from the benefit of Section 10(46). 183. In this context, it would be useful to consider the judgment of the Delhi and Allahabad High Courts in Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority v Union of India[147] (hereafter "GNIDA") and CIT v Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority[148] In GNIDA (supra), the High

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD vs. KAKATIYA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, WARANGAL

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1881/HYD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. SandhyaFor Respondent: Shri Jeevanlal Lavidiya –
Section 25l

gain is derived would not disentitle them from the benefit of Section 10(46). 183. In this context, it would be useful to consider the judgment of the Delhi and Allahabad High Courts in Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority v Union of India[147] (hereafter "GNIDA") and CIT v Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority[148] In GNIDA (supra), the High

KAKATIYA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,WARANGAL vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1722/HYD/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Dec 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. SandhyaFor Respondent: Shri Jeevanlal Lavidiya –
Section 25l

gain is derived would not disentitle them from the benefit of Section 10(46). 183. In this context, it would be useful to consider the judgment of the Delhi and Allahabad High Courts in Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority v Union of India[147] (hereafter "GNIDA") and CIT v Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority[148] In GNIDA (supra), the High

DCIT, EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE, HYDERABAD vs. HYDERABAD METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, SECUNDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of assessee and Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 326/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Dec 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. SandhyaFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya –
Section 11Section 139Section 139(1)

gain is derived would not disentitle them from the benefit of Section 10(46). 183. In this context, it would be useful to consider the judgment of the Delhi and Allahabad High Courts in Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority v Union of India[147] (hereafter "GNIDA") and CIT v Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority[148] In GNIDA (supra), the High

HYDERABAD METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of assessee and Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 271/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Dec 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. SandhyaFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya –
Section 11Section 139Section 139(1)

gain is derived would not disentitle them from the benefit of Section 10(46). 183. In this context, it would be useful to consider the judgment of the Delhi and Allahabad High Courts in Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority v Union of India[147] (hereafter "GNIDA") and CIT v Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority[148] In GNIDA (supra), the High