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.

57 results for “capital gains”+ Section 245clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai571Delhi463Bangalore237Chennai134Karnataka113Kolkata104Jaipur73Ahmedabad72Hyderabad57Indore56Chandigarh48Pune36Cuttack32Guwahati29Cochin25Surat25Lucknow22Rajkot20Nagpur19Calcutta19Raipur18Visakhapatnam15SC10Agra7Varanasi5Jodhpur5Ranchi5Telangana4Amritsar4Jabalpur3Rajasthan3Andhra Pradesh1Panaji1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)39Addition to Income37Section 14726Search & Seizure26Section 26324Section 153A24Section 143(2)24Survey u/s 133A21Section 132

TARUN KUMAR GOYAL ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 456/HYD/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohana Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sibendu Moharana, DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)

capital gain as bogus ones in absence of any supportive evidence in their support; whatsoever. The impugned addition(s) qua both aspects (supra) are directed to be deleted. This former appeal ITA No.456/Hyd/2020 is accepted. 4. Next comes both assessee’s appeals ITA Nos.457 & 458/Hyd/2020 seeking to reverse the lower authorities’ identical action making the alleged un-explained un accounted

TARUN KUMAR GOYAL ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1)2, HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Showing 1–20 of 57 · Page 1 of 3

20
Section 269S18
Penalty17
Section 139(4)16
ITA 457/HYD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Apr 2021AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohana Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sibendu Moharana, DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)

capital gain as bogus ones in absence of any supportive evidence in their support; whatsoever. The impugned addition(s) qua both aspects (supra) are directed to be deleted. This former appeal ITA No.456/Hyd/2020 is accepted. 4. Next comes both assessee’s appeals ITA Nos.457 & 458/Hyd/2020 seeking to reverse the lower authorities’ identical action making the alleged un-explained un accounted

ARUN KUMAR GOYAL ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 458/HYD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Apr 2021AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohana Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sibendu Moharana, DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)

capital gain as bogus ones in absence of any supportive evidence in their support; whatsoever. The impugned addition(s) qua both aspects (supra) are directed to be deleted. This former appeal ITA No.456/Hyd/2020 is accepted. 4. Next comes both assessee’s appeals ITA Nos.457 & 458/Hyd/2020 seeking to reverse the lower authorities’ identical action making the alleged un-explained un accounted

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 in the year of completion of project taking sale consideration at stamp duty value or actual consideration received, whichever is higher ignoring the legal provisions. 5. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing.” 6. With regard to ground No.1, the ld. AR submitted that AO reopened the assessment considering the findings given

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 in the year of completion of project taking sale consideration at stamp duty value or actual consideration received, whichever is higher ignoring the legal provisions. 5. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing.” 6. With regard to ground No.1, the ld. AR submitted that AO reopened the assessment considering the findings given

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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 in the year of completion of project taking sale consideration at stamp duty value or actual consideration received, whichever is higher ignoring the legal provisions. 5. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing.” 6. With regard to ground No.1, the ld. AR submitted that AO reopened the assessment considering the findings given

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 in the year of completion of project taking sale consideration at stamp duty value or actual consideration received, whichever is higher ignoring the legal provisions. 5. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing.” 6. With regard to ground No.1, the ld. AR submitted that AO reopened the assessment considering the findings given

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. NAGAM SHASHIDHAR REDDY, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of Revenue dismissed

ITA 530/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri A.Mohan Alankamonyappellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri A.V.Raghu Ram, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(47)(v)

Capital Gains liability on the assessee. In this connection, the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh while giving judgement in the case of PotlaNageswara Rao Vs "DCIT, Central Circle-A, Hyderabad [ITTA.No.245 of 2014 dated 9- 4-2014] held that the language of Section

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. ADUNURU PALLAVI REDDY, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of Revenue dismissed

ITA 531/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri A.Mohan Alankamonyappellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri A.V.Raghu Ram, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(47)(v)

Capital Gains liability on the assessee. In this connection, the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh while giving judgement in the case of PotlaNageswara Rao Vs "DCIT, Central Circle-A, Hyderabad [ITTA.No.245 of 2014 dated 9- 4-2014] held that the language of Section

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. NAGAM DINAKAR REDDY, HYDERABAD, SECUNDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of Revenue dismissed

ITA 529/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri A.Mohan Alankamonyappellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri A.V.Raghu Ram, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(47)(v)

Capital Gains liability on the assessee. In this connection, the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh while giving judgement in the case of PotlaNageswara Rao Vs "DCIT, Central Circle-A, Hyderabad [ITTA.No.245 of 2014 dated 9- 4-2014] held that the language of Section

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. NAGAM SUGUNA, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of Revenue dismissed

ITA 528/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri A.Mohan Alankamonyappellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri A.V.Raghu Ram, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(47)(v)

Capital Gains liability on the assessee. In this connection, the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh while giving judgement in the case of PotlaNageswara Rao Vs "DCIT, Central Circle-A, Hyderabad [ITTA.No.245 of 2014 dated 9- 4-2014] held that the language of Section

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(1), HYDERABAD vs. AYESHA MEGDLENE KOMANAPALLI, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue under consideration are dismissed in above terms

ITA 848/HYD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2013-14 Income-Tax Officer, Ward – Vs. Ayesha Magdelene 7(1), Hyderabad. Komanpalli, Hyderabad. Pan – Adfpk 0621D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Income-Tax Officer, Ward – Vs. Lena Prasad Rao Patta, 7(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan – Abfpl 6797 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By: Shri D. Srinivas Assessee By: Shri H. Srinivasulu Date Of Hearing: 19/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 24/08/2021 O R D E R Per L.P. Sahu, A.M.: Both These Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Cit(A) – 11, Hyderabad’S Separate Orders Dated

For Appellant: Shri H. SrinivasuluFor Respondent: Shri D. Srinivas
Section 143(3)Section 153C

245 of 2014) of the jurisdictional High Court. The assessee contends that there was no development undertaken by the developer after signing the agreement. The developer has not applied for plan approval nor any plan got approved. The developer has no intention to carry on the development as per the agreement. Further, the assessee has cancelled the JDA and cancellation

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs. LENA PRASAD RAO PATTA , HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue under consideration are dismissed in above terms

ITA 849/HYD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2013-14 Income-Tax Officer, Ward – Vs. Ayesha Magdelene 7(1), Hyderabad. Komanpalli, Hyderabad. Pan – Adfpk 0621D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Income-Tax Officer, Ward – Vs. Lena Prasad Rao Patta, 7(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan – Abfpl 6797 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By: Shri D. Srinivas Assessee By: Shri H. Srinivasulu Date Of Hearing: 19/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 24/08/2021 O R D E R Per L.P. Sahu, A.M.: Both These Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Cit(A) – 11, Hyderabad’S Separate Orders Dated

For Appellant: Shri H. SrinivasuluFor Respondent: Shri D. Srinivas
Section 143(3)Section 153C

245 of 2014) of the jurisdictional High Court. The assessee contends that there was no development undertaken by the developer after signing the agreement. The developer has not applied for plan approval nor any plan got approved. The developer has no intention to carry on the development as per the agreement. Further, the assessee has cancelled the JDA and cancellation

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10(1), HYDERABAD vs. VERTEX PROJECTS LLP (FORMERLY M/S VERTEX PROJECTS LTD) , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1187/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Acit,Circle-10(1) Vs. Vertex Projects Llp Room No.515, 5Th Floor, (Formerly M/S.Vertex A-Block, I.T.Towers, Projects Ltd.) A.C.Guards, #156-159, Paigah House Hyderabad. S.P.Road, Next To Pg College. Secunderabad-500 026. Pan : Aanfv0232C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sriram Seshadri, Ca Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar,Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.04.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Laliet Kumar, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Dated 16.03.2018 For The Ay 2014-15, On The Following Grounds :

For Appellant: Shri Sriram Seshadri, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar,CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 14A(3)Section 47Section 56Section 56(2)(viia)Section 56(2)(viiia)

245/ - has been further disallowed on account of repairs and maintenance for which the appellant has not agitated in appeal, this leaves the sum of Rs. 14,01,557/- which has been claimed by the appellant. Therefore, the disallowance cannot exceed the sum of Rs. 14,01,557/-. Therefore, on principles of section 14A the ground

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. L.RAJALAKSHMI, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 1138/CHNY/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Jun 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Mr. Anil Chaturvedi, Am [Through Video Conferencing] आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 1678, 1679 & 1680/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 Smt. L.Rajalakshmi, Hyderabad अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Afgpr3011K …..

For Respondent: : Shri Sunku Srinivasu, DR
Section 147Section 148Section 50C

section 50C of the Act then, such I.T.A. Nos. 1678, 1679, 1680 :- 14 -: & 1138/Chny/2014 proposition could be applied. We find no merit in the plea of the Revenue in this regard. The AO has applied 50C guidance value for computing the income from long term capital gains. There is no merit in the said exercise carried

L.RAJALAKSHMI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 1678/CHNY/2014[2007-08]Status: PendingITAT Hyderabad26 Jun 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Mr. Anil Chaturvedi, Am [Through Video Conferencing] आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 1678, 1679 & 1680/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 Smt. L.Rajalakshmi, Hyderabad अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Afgpr3011K …..

For Respondent: : Shri Sunku Srinivasu, DR
Section 147Section 148Section 50C

section 50C of the Act then, such I.T.A. Nos. 1678, 1679, 1680 :- 14 -: & 1138/Chny/2014 proposition could be applied. We find no merit in the plea of the Revenue in this regard. The AO has applied 50C guidance value for computing the income from long term capital gains. There is no merit in the said exercise carried

L.RAJALAKSHMI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 1680/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Jun 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Mr. Anil Chaturvedi, Am [Through Video Conferencing] आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 1678, 1679 & 1680/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 Smt. L.Rajalakshmi, Hyderabad अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Afgpr3011K …..

For Respondent: : Shri Sunku Srinivasu, DR
Section 147Section 148Section 50C

section 50C of the Act then, such I.T.A. Nos. 1678, 1679, 1680 :- 14 -: & 1138/Chny/2014 proposition could be applied. We find no merit in the plea of the Revenue in this regard. The AO has applied 50C guidance value for computing the income from long term capital gains. There is no merit in the said exercise carried

L.RAJALAKSHMI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 1679/CHNY/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Jun 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Mr. Anil Chaturvedi, Am [Through Video Conferencing] आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 1678, 1679 & 1680/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 Smt. L.Rajalakshmi, Hyderabad अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Afgpr3011K …..

For Respondent: : Shri Sunku Srinivasu, DR
Section 147Section 148Section 50C

section 50C of the Act then, such I.T.A. Nos. 1678, 1679, 1680 :- 14 -: & 1138/Chny/2014 proposition could be applied. We find no merit in the plea of the Revenue in this regard. The AO has applied 50C guidance value for computing the income from long term capital gains. There is no merit in the said exercise carried

SANTOSH KUMAR SUBBANI.,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1348/HYD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Nov 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri P. Madhavi Devi & D.S. Sunder Singh(Through Video Conference) Ay: 2007-08 Santosh Kumar Subbani, Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward – 11(3), Hyderabad.

For Appellant: Shri B.V. Krishna RaoFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey
Section 148oSection 2Section 2(47)(v)

section 2(47)(v) of the Act to the capital gains and the same is unjustified. Since there was no real income received by the AO, the Ld.. AR argued that the CIT(A) misguided himself in confirming the addition, therefore, requested to set aside the order of CIT(A) and allow the appeal of the assessee

VIJAYALAKSHMI ENTERPRISES,HYDERABAD vs. ITO WARD 15(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 244/HYD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.244 & 245/Hyd/2021 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17) Vijayalakshmi Enterprises Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 15(1) Pan:Aanfv2591E Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Th Vijaya Lakshmi Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 03/04/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/04/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. TH Vijaya Lakshmi CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263

capital asset. Page 20 of 22 ITA Nos 244 and 245 of 2021 Vijayalakshmi Enterprises 11.1 Hence as per the provisions of Section 45(3) of the Act, profits or gains