Search: capital gains | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

1,310 results for “capital gains”+ Section 50Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai266 Delhi195 Jaipur111 Hyderabad84 Chennai78 Ahmedabad73 Kolkata58 Indore57 Surat51 Pune43 Nagpur39 Bangalore38 Visakhapatnam29 Lucknow27 Agra26 Chandigarh22 Rajkot21 Dehradun19 Raipur16 Patna15 Jodhpur11 Jabalpur7 Cochin6 Amritsar6 Panaji3 Allahabad3 Cuttack2 Varanasi2 Ranchi1 Guwahati1

Key Topics

Section 50C106 Addition to Income75 Section 143(3)57 Section 14750 Section 14848 Section 26343 Section 25024 Capital Gains24 Section 271(1)(c)20 Section 54F

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

capital gain by invoking provisions of Section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 etc. 4. The assessee carried the matter

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

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

Showing 1–20 of 1,310 · Page 1 of 66

...

19

Long Term Capital Gains19

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

capital gain by invoking provisions of Section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 etc. 4. The assessee carried the matter

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

capital gain by invoking provisions of Section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 etc. 4. The assessee carried the matter

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

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

capital gain by invoking provisions of Section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 etc. 4. The assessee carried the matter

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

capital gain by invoking provisions of Section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 etc. 4. The assessee carried the matter

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

capital gain by invoking provisions of Section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 etc. 4. The assessee carried the matter

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

capital gain by invoking provisions of Section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 etc. 4. The assessee carried the matter

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

capital gain by invoking provisions of Section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 etc. 4. The assessee carried the matter

NABHIRAJ RATNA BALRAJ BY LEGAL HEIR B.R.RAKESH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 603/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Ms. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 50C

section 50C provided that where a person transfers a capital asset being land or building or both and if the consideration received or accruing as a result of transfer was less than the stamp duty value of the capital asset transferred then for the purpose of computing capital gains

SHAHNAJ,NEAR BHERUDANJI WELL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, INCOME TAX OFFICE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 712/JODH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur01 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Dr Mitha Lal Meenasmt. Shanaj Vs The Ito W/O Shri Aslam Khan Ward-2, Churu, Near Bherudan Ji Well,Ward No. 22 Churu Sardarshahar,Churu – 331 403 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Fpmps 3570 D

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 50CSection 54F

section 50C and 56(2)(vii) of the act are applicable on Capital Assets and not on agriculture land. It is further to submit that according to the definition of ‘capital gain

A.C.I.T.,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), KOLKATA vs. M/S ESTIN TIE UP PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the two cross appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 141/KOL/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 50C(1)Section 55A

capital gains was enhanced to ₹76,04,62,428/- by the Ld. AO while applying section 50C of the Act. e) The Ld. CIT(A) on one hand

M/S ESTIN TIE UP PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the two cross appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 32/KOL/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 50C(1)Section 55A

capital gains was enhanced to ₹76,04,62,428/- by the Ld. AO while applying section 50C of the Act. e) The Ld. CIT(A) on one hand

VIDHI ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

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

ITA 2060/MUM/2024[A.Y 2015-1]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2024

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () Before Shri Om Prakash Kant () Before Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Mr. Snehal Shah

50C, thus, on a conceptual note, is a provision to address capital gains tax evasion on account of understatement of the consideration. Of capital gains tax evasion on account of understatement of the consideration. Of capital gains tax evasion on account of understatement of the consideration. Of course, the law provides course, the law provides, under section

ACIT 32 1, MUMBAI vs. VIDHI ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI

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

ITA 2151/MUM/2024[2015 16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2024

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () Before Shri Om Prakash Kant () Before Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Mr. Snehal Shah

50C, thus, on a conceptual note, is a provision to address capital gains tax evasion on account of understatement of the consideration. Of capital gains tax evasion on account of understatement of the consideration. Of capital gains tax evasion on account of understatement of the consideration. Of course, the law provides course, the law provides, under section

M/S MASCOT CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 2(2)(3)

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2737/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Mascot Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax Officer 2(2)(3), 3Rd Floor, Indian Mercantile Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Chambers, 14R, Kamani Marg, Mumbai-400020. Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400001. Pan No. Aaccm 6531 H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Haridas Bhat

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C

capital gain assessed invoking section 50C of the Act. respect of capital gain assessed invoking section 50C of the Act. respect

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR vs. SHRI RAVINDRA MITTAL, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 823/JPR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 823/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2012-13 D.C.I.T., Cuke Shri Ravindra Mittal, Vs. Circle-6, 804, Akshat Niley Apartment, Jaipur. Hawa Sarak, Civil Lines, Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aexpm 9057 N Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Shri Ambrish Bedi (CIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 143(3)Section 54E

Capital Gain, Assessing Officer is directed to allow the indexed cost of acquisition as claimed by assessee at Rs. 14,40,380/- as claimed by the assessee as against of Rs. 1,98,776/-,allowed by Assessing Officer. The 2nd issue is whether provisions of section 50C

TATA CONSUMER PRODUCTS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed

ITA 372/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2014-15 & Assessment Years: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sriram Sashdari, ARFor Respondent: Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, DR

Section 250Section 43(6)Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 928

Capital Gain. Further, CIT(A) has observed in the order that the appellant has taken an additional ground before CIT(A) that the trans- ferred assets formed part of the WDV of the appellant and involved the provisions of Section 43(6)(c) read with Section 32 of the Act, therefore Section 50C

TATA CONSUMER PRODUCTS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed

ITA 373/KOL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2014-15 & Assessment Years: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sriram Sashdari, ARFor Respondent: Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, DR

Section 250Section 43(6)Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 928

Capital Gain. Further, CIT(A) has observed in the order that the appellant has taken an additional ground before CIT(A) that the trans- ferred assets formed part of the WDV of the appellant and involved the provisions of Section 43(6)(c) read with Section 32 of the Act, therefore Section 50C

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU vs. ALAGAPPA ANNAMALAI (HUF), BENGALURU

The appeals of the assessees are allowed\nand revenue appeals are dismissed

ITA 955/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

50C", "Section 50D", "Section 48", "Section 55" ], "issues": "The primary issue was the assessment year for taxation of capital gains

SRI ALAGAPPA ANNAMALAI(HUF),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed\nand revenue appeals are dismissed

ITA 776/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

50C", "Section 50D", "Section 53A", "Section 55" ], "issues": "The primary issue was determining the correct assessment year for taxing capital gains