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.

25 results for “capital gains”+ Section 153Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai135Delhi113Jaipur78Cochin68Bangalore43Guwahati31Hyderabad25Ahmedabad24Chennai20Pune13Lucknow10Nagpur8Karnataka7Chandigarh7Rajkot6Surat4Amritsar3Visakhapatnam2Indore2Jodhpur2Raipur2Panaji1Kolkata1

Key Topics

Section 153C102Section 143(3)30Section 13228Search & Seizure20Section 153A19Section 149(3)15Section 163(1)12Section 142(1)12Addition to Income

ITO, WARD-7(3), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. KOSETTY NAGARAJU, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 343/HYD/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Esther N. Hangal
Section 132Section 143(3)

capital gains had arisen in the hands of the assessee on whom he was having jurisdiction and assessed accordingly. Therefore, section 153C not attracted. We are not in a position to accept this proposition as the liability arises on the assessee only because of incriminating material found during search. The procedure laid down for the purpose of search and seizure

K GOPAL RAJ, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CEN.CIRCLE-1(3), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Showing 1–20 of 25 · Page 1 of 2

12
Section 153D10
Capital Gains6
Short Term Capital Gains6
ITA 773/HYD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Esther N. Hangal
Section 132Section 143(3)

capital gains had arisen in the hands of the assessee on whom he was having jurisdiction and assessed accordingly. Therefore, section 153C not attracted. We are not in a position to accept this proposition as the liability arises on the assessee only because of incriminating material found during search. The procedure laid down for the purpose of search and seizure

ACIT, CIRCLE-7(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. K GOPAL RAJ, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 765/HYD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Esther N. Hangal
Section 132Section 143(3)

capital gains had arisen in the hands of the assessee on whom he was having jurisdiction and assessed accordingly. Therefore, section 153C not attracted. We are not in a position to accept this proposition as the liability arises on the assessee only because of incriminating material found during search. The procedure laid down for the purpose of search and seizure

ITO, WARD-7(3), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. KOSETTY KISHORE, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 342/HYD/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Esther N. Hangal
Section 132Section 143(3)

capital gains had arisen in the hands of the assessee on whom he was having jurisdiction and assessed accordingly. Therefore, section 153C not attracted. We are not in a position to accept this proposition as the liability arises on the assessee only because of incriminating material found during search. The procedure laid down for the purpose of search and seizure

VIJAYARAGHAVAN LAKSHMI,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 260/HYD/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2016-17 Mrs. Vijayaraghavan Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1(2) Lakshmi Aaykar Bhawan Ground Floor, Block-A Opp:L.B.Stadium Prince Villa, New No.15 Basheerbagh Rajamannar Street Hyderabad Teynampet Chennai-600 018 Tamilnadu

For Appellant: Shri A. Srinivas, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.M.Mahidhar, Sr.AR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 156Section 54

153B and section 153C, all other provisions of this Act shall apply to the assessment or reassessment made under section 153A. It is also clarified that assessment or reassessment made under section 153A shall be subject to interest penalty and prosecution, if applicable. In the assessment or reassessment made in respect of an assessment year under this section

NARSI REDDY KOMATIREDDY,HYDERABAD vs. SRIG. SANTOSH KUMAR, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 120/HYD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, C.AFor Respondent: : Shri Waseem Ur Rehman, SR-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 45

153B of the Act thereby an addition of Long Term Capital Gain for transfer of land under the development agreement was made to the tune of Rs.82,84,130/-. A similar addition was made by the Ld. AO for the A.Y. 2017- 18 along with addition on account of unexplained investment in jewellery of ITA Nos.120 & 121/Hyd/2021 5 Rs.25

NARSI REDDY KOMATIREDDY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 121/HYD/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, C.AFor Respondent: : Shri Waseem Ur Rehman, SR-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 45

153B of the Act thereby an addition of Long Term Capital Gain for transfer of land under the development agreement was made to the tune of Rs.82,84,130/-. A similar addition was made by the Ld. AO for the A.Y. 2017- 18 along with addition on account of unexplained investment in jewellery of ITA Nos.120 & 121/Hyd/2021 5 Rs.25

ASRA AHMED ,HYDERABAD vs. ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in I

ITA 157/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.156/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18)

For Respondent: Shri B.Bala Krishna, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 148Section 153ASection 153BSection 153CSection 48Section 56

capital gains and additions towards cash consideration u/s 56(2)(vii) of the Act. The DRP, vide directions issued u/s 144C(5) of the Act on 26/12/2023, rejected the objections filed by the assessee and upheld the additions proposed by the Ld.AO. Thereafter, the Ld.AO passed final assessment order u/s 153C r.w.s.144C(13) of the Act, on 19/01/2024 and determined

SYED AHMED ZEESHANUDDIN,HYDERABAD vs. ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2 , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in I

ITA 156/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.156/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18)

For Respondent: Shri B.Bala Krishna, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 148Section 153ASection 153BSection 153CSection 48Section 56

capital gains and additions towards cash consideration u/s 56(2)(vii) of the Act. The DRP, vide directions issued u/s 144C(5) of the Act on 26/12/2023, rejected the objections filed by the assessee and upheld the additions proposed by the Ld.AO. Thereafter, the Ld.AO passed final assessment order u/s 153C r.w.s.144C(13) of the Act, on 19/01/2024 and determined

ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (INTL.TXN)-II,, HYDERABAD vs. M/S MIDWEST GRANITE (P) LIMITED,, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, the assessee’s appeal for the A.Y. 2009-10 is dismissed as withdrawn”

ITA 725/HYD/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Dec 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri T.Sunil Goutam, DR
Section 132Section 148Section 149(3)Section 153CSection 163Section 163(1)

153B are not applicable. As per sub-section (3) of section 149, the assessment under section 148 on the ‘representative-assessee’ shall not be made after expiry of a period of two years from the end of the relevant assessment year. In the case before us, the relevant assessment years are the A.Ys. 2004-05 to 2008-09 wherein notice

ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (INTL.TXN)-II,, HYDERABAD vs. M/S MIDWEST GRANITE (P) LIMITED,, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, the assessee’s appeal for the A.Y. 2009-10 is dismissed as withdrawn”

ITA 723/HYD/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Dec 2021AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri T.Sunil Goutam, DR
Section 132Section 148Section 149(3)Section 153CSection 163Section 163(1)

153B are not applicable. As per sub-section (3) of section 149, the assessment under section 148 on the ‘representative-assessee’ shall not be made after expiry of a period of two years from the end of the relevant assessment year. In the case before us, the relevant assessment years are the A.Ys. 2004-05 to 2008-09 wherein notice

ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (INTL.TXN)-II,, HYDERABAD vs. M/S MIDWEST GRANITE (P) LIMITED,, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, the assessee’s appeal for the A.Y. 2009-10 is dismissed as withdrawn”

ITA 724/HYD/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Dec 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri T.Sunil Goutam, DR
Section 132Section 148Section 149(3)Section 153CSection 163Section 163(1)

153B are not applicable. As per sub-section (3) of section 149, the assessment under section 148 on the ‘representative-assessee’ shall not be made after expiry of a period of two years from the end of the relevant assessment year. In the case before us, the relevant assessment years are the A.Ys. 2004-05 to 2008-09 wherein notice

PAVAN KUMAR REDDY KADIGARI,USA vs. ITO, (INT TAXN)-2, HYDERABAD

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

ITA 159/HYD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Adv. Mohd.AfzalFor Respondent: Shri K Madhusudan, CIT(DR)
Section 127Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 2(47)

capital gain by observing as under: 6. The Assessing Officer further made addition of Rs.3,53,000/-being cash deposit in the bank account in absence of any explanation given by the assessee regarding the nature and source of the same. 7. Thus, the Assessing Officer determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.66,37,395/-. Page

PAVAN KUMAR REDDY KADIGARI,USA vs. ITO,(INT TAXN)-2, HYDERABAD

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

ITA 160/HYD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Adv. Mohd.AfzalFor Respondent: Shri K Madhusudan, CIT(DR)
Section 127Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 2(47)

capital gain by observing as under: 6. The Assessing Officer further made addition of Rs.3,53,000/-being cash deposit in the bank account in absence of any explanation given by the assessee regarding the nature and source of the same. 7. Thus, the Assessing Officer determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.66,37,395/-. Page

PAVAN KUMAR REDDY KADIGARI,USA vs. ITO, (INT TAXN)-2, HYDERABAD

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

ITA 163/HYD/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Sept 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Adv. Mohd.AfzalFor Respondent: Shri K Madhusudan, CIT(DR)
Section 127Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 2(47)

capital gain by observing as under: 6. The Assessing Officer further made addition of Rs.3,53,000/-being cash deposit in the bank account in absence of any explanation given by the assessee regarding the nature and source of the same. 7. Thus, the Assessing Officer determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.66,37,395/-. Page

PAVAN KUMAR REDDY KADIGARI,USA vs. ITO, (INT TAXN)-2, HYDERABAD

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

ITA 161/HYD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Adv. Mohd.AfzalFor Respondent: Shri K Madhusudan, CIT(DR)
Section 127Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 2(47)

capital gain by observing as under: 6. The Assessing Officer further made addition of Rs.3,53,000/-being cash deposit in the bank account in absence of any explanation given by the assessee regarding the nature and source of the same. 7. Thus, the Assessing Officer determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.66,37,395/-. Page

PAVAN KUMAR REDDY KADIGARI,USA vs. ITO, (INT TAXN)-2, HYDERABAD

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

ITA 162/HYD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Adv. Mohd.AfzalFor Respondent: Shri K Madhusudan, CIT(DR)
Section 127Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 2(47)

capital gain by observing as under: 6. The Assessing Officer further made addition of Rs.3,53,000/-being cash deposit in the bank account in absence of any explanation given by the assessee regarding the nature and source of the same. 7. Thus, the Assessing Officer determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.66,37,395/-. Page

PAVAN KUMAR REDDY KADIGARI,USA vs. ITO, (INT TAXN)-2, HYDERABAD

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

ITA 158/HYD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Adv. Mohd.AfzalFor Respondent: Shri K Madhusudan, CIT(DR)
Section 127Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 2(47)

capital gain by observing as under: 6. The Assessing Officer further made addition of Rs.3,53,000/-being cash deposit in the bank account in absence of any explanation given by the assessee regarding the nature and source of the same. 7. Thus, the Assessing Officer determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.66,37,395/-. Page

DAMODAR REDDY KAITI ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1630/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Sri K.A. Sai Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Sri K.P.R. Murthy
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 44A

153B the assessee declared business income of Rs.52,000/- u/s 44AD. When queried during the assessment proceedings, the assessee did not state the reasons either for such deviation or for the decrease in business income for the same Period. The assessee also did not State the plots sold were covered and declared u/s 44AD. In any case, the assessee

DAMODAR REDDY KAITI ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1631/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Sri K.A. Sai Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Sri K.P.R. Murthy
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 44A

153B the assessee declared business income of Rs.52,000/- u/s 44AD. When queried during the assessment proceedings, the assessee did not state the reasons either for such deviation or for the decrease in business income for the same Period. The assessee also did not State the plots sold were covered and declared u/s 44AD. In any case, the assessee