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.

6 results for “capital gains”+ Section 55Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai174Delhi63Surat44Ahmedabad32Kolkata30Pune23Bangalore15Chennai11Raipur7Cochin6Rajkot6Hyderabad6Lucknow6Indore5Amritsar5Chandigarh5Jaipur4Agra2SC2Karnataka1Cuttack1Allahabad1Nagpur1

Key Topics

Section 54F6Addition to Income4Section 143(3)3Search & Seizure3Section 1322Section 153A2Section 2(47)2Unexplained Cash Credit2

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-11(1), HYDERABAD vs. LATE SHRI IENENI SRIPATHIRAO L/R IENENI SHASHIKANT, HYDERABAD

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 1380/HYD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year: 2011-12 The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. Late Shri Ieneni Income Tax, Sripathirao Circle – 11(1), L/R Ieneni Shashikant, Hyderabad. H.No.5-2-41/20, Seshadri Nagar, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. Pan : Beeps2654P. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas. Revenue By: Shri T. Sunil Goutam. Date Of Hearing: 23/11/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 29/11/2021 O R D E R Per S. S. Godara, J.M. This Assessee’S Appeal For A.Y 2011-12 Arises From The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Hyderabad’S Order Dated 16.07.2019, In Case No.0060/2018-19/Cit(A)-5 Involving Proceedings Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, “The Act”). Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused.

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Shri T. Sunil Goutam
Section 143(3)Section 54F

section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as per their respective shares. 4. The Owners agreed to take the consideration not of the market value in money terms, but in lieu of the same, agreed to take 55% of the constructed area pertaining to flats/ apartments and each of them, also took certain amounts of money from

DCIT,CENT CIR-2(4), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. CLEAN CITY ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1624/HYD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Alankamonyassessment Year: 2011-12 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Clean City Estates Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax, Hyderabad. Central Circle – 2(4), Hyderabad. Pan – Aaccc4799H Appellant Respondent Revenue By: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram Date Of Hearing: 11/12/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 21/02/2020 O R D E R Per Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, J.M.:

For Appellant: Shri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 2(47)

capital gains and in the context of connotations of the expression ‘transfer’ under section 2(47) – things which, or the reasons set out above, are wholly irrelevant in the present context. 10. Let us, in this light, revert to the findings of the CIT(A) wherein, relying upon the provisions of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property

N PADMAJA DEVI,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 2248/HYD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Apr 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu(Through Physical Hearing) Smt. Nandamuri Padmaja Devi, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Ramakrishna 70 Mm, Of Income Tax, Ntr Estates, Abids, Circle 2(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad-500 001 Pan Aaxpn 3203B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri G.Kalyan Das & Shri A. harishFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Majumdar (D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 254

capital gains. Further, the AO erred in law in making reference to the DVOu/s.50C of the Act and therefore, the proceedings are bad in law. Furthermore, the ova having determined the valuation of the land u/s.5OC of the Act, made passing reference to Section 55A

MOHD. ABDUL HAMEED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1649/HYD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Oct 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Deviita No. 1649/Hyd./2017 A.Y. 2008-09 Mohd. Abdul Hameed Vs. Ito, Ward 4 (3) D.No.2-4-663, Sundernagar Hyderabad Kachiguda Hyderabad Pan: Aecpm1492C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Smt. S. Sandhya, A.RFor Respondent: Sh. A. Venkata Rao, D.R
Section 148Section 50CSection 55A

55A of the I.T.Act, 1961. 4.1. The Ld.DR, on the other hand, supported the orders of the authorities below and submitted that it was at the request of the assessee that the property was referred to the Valuation Officer and the AO and the CIT(|A) have adopted the value as per the Valuation Officer’s report after taking into

C.VAMSI KRISHNA ,HYDERABAD vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 526/HYD/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Nov 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan, CAFor Respondent: Shri M. Satish, DR
Section 132Section 153A

gain filed for the A.Y 2010-11. It was accordingly requested that the addition made by the Assessing Officer is not correct. 29.1 However, the learned CIT (A) was not satisfied with the arguments advanced by the assessee and sustained the addition by observing as under: “8.2) The claim of the appellant is verified with reference to remand report

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD vs. C VAMSI KRISHNA , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 543/HYD/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan, CAFor Respondent: Shri M. Satish, DR
Section 132Section 153A

gain filed for the A.Y 2010-11. It was accordingly requested that the addition made by the Assessing Officer is not correct. 29.1 However, the learned CIT (A) was not satisfied with the arguments advanced by the assessee and sustained the addition by observing as under: “8.2) The claim of the appellant is verified with reference to remand report