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.

2 results for “capital gains”+ Section 69Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi119Jaipur116Mumbai93Bangalore38Chandigarh27Pune27Chennai20Indore19Rajkot15Amritsar12Surat11Cochin10Raipur7Kolkata7Ahmedabad6Jodhpur5Hyderabad2SC2Nagpur1Jabalpur1Guwahati1Ranchi1Kerala1Allahabad1Karnataka1Lucknow1

Key Topics

Capital Gains2Addition to Income2

NAGARURU SRINIVASA RAO,KURNOOL vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-1, KURNOOL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in the above terms

ITA 422/HYD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.422/Hyd/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

For Appellant: B.Satyanarayana Murthy, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, DR
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 69B

capital gains and other sources. For the assessment year 2011- 12, he filed the return of income on 31/3/2012 declaring an income of ₹ 2,78,840/-. It was processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”). Subsequently notice under section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee and the assessee filed

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(2), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. SABBINENI SURENDRA, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the Revenue’s appeal and the assessee’s cross objections are dismissed

ITA 599/HYD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2012-13 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Sabbineni Surendra, Income Tax, No. 512/R, Road No.29, Central Circle-2(2), Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Adqps 3461 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri V. Raghavendra RaoFor Respondent: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 69Section 69A

capital gains income and unsecured loans 3 which were duly reflected in the statement of affairs of the relevant assessment years. He also claimed exemption towards possession of gold for the family members as per the guidelines of CBDT. The Assessing Officer, however, observed that the assessee has not adduced any evidence like bills / vouchers, bank payments etc., with regard