Search: disallowance | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases 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.

138 results for “disallowance”+ Section 1aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai933 Delhi917 Bangalore517 Chennai351 Kolkata208 Ahmedabad167 Jaipur144 Hyderabad138 Pune115 Raipur95 Cochin68 Karnataka54 Indore54 Chandigarh53 Surat43 Cuttack30 Nagpur29 Rajkot26 Panaji25 SC20 Visakhapatnam20 Jodhpur19 Lucknow18 Guwahati14 Ranchi12 Telangana10 Jabalpur10 Agra8 Patna6 Varanasi6 Amritsar5 Dehradun3 Kerala2 Punjab & Haryana2 Allahabad2 Orissa1 ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1 Calcutta1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)45 Section 153C43 Addition to Income43 Disallowance40 Section 6833 Deduction30 Section 4029 Section 10(1)24 TDS24 Section 263

SRI RAMA AGRI GENETICS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,KURNOOL vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1, KURNOOL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1179/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 201Section 263Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(va)Section 41(1)Section 68

Section 201(1A) of the Act. 15. The A.O. disallowed interest paid under Section 201(1A) of the Act on TDS deducted

Showing 1–20 of 138 · Page 1 of 7

22

NIPPON KOEI CO. LTD.,BEGUMPET vs. ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)- 2, HYDERABAD

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

ITA 670/HYD/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.670/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22) M/S Nippon Koei Co. Ltd Vs. Adit (International Hyderabad Taxation)-2, Pan:Aabcn8434F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Gsv Prasad, Anand Swaroop & S K Mohanty, Cas राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. U. Mini Chandran, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 27/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 21/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

For Appellant: Shri GSV Prasad, Anand Swaroop and S K Mohanty, CAsFor Respondent: : Smt. U. Mini Chandran, CIT(DR)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 201Section 37(1)Section 40Section 44D

1A) of the Act of Rs.2,10,265/-, Disallowance of lead role expenditure of Rs.19,58,509/-, Disallowance of payment made to M/s. Antony Burchell of Rs. 3,08,08,089/-, Disallowance under section

ASIAN INSTITUTE OF GASTROENTEROLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment years 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 are allowed

ITA 610/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: CA, S. VenugopalFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D of I.T. Rules. Therefore, we cannot uphold the reasons given by the learned PCIT to set-aside the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer for both the assessment years. 11. The assessee has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Company Limited

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-9(1), HYDERABAD vs. TELANGANA GRAMEENA BANK(EARLIER KNOWN AS M/S DECCAN GRAMEENA BANK), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the assessee’s C

ITA 485/HYD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Respondent: Smt. Nivedita Biswas, DR

Section 148Section 194ASection 263Section 40Section 44A

1A) or under sub-section (1C) of section 197A is subordinate.]” Page 7 of 10 ITA Nos 714 and 485 and its COs Telangana Grameena Bank Hyderabad. 11. We find that the sub-rule 6 to Rule 29C has come in to the statute book only w.e.f. 1.10.2015 whereas the relevant A.Ys before

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-9(1), HYDERABAD vs. TELANGANA GRAMEENA BANK (EARLIER KNOWN AS M/S DECCAN GRAMEENA BANK), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the assessee’s C

ITA 714/HYD/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Oct 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Respondent: Smt. Nivedita Biswas, DR

Section 148Section 194ASection 263Section 40Section 44A

1A) or under sub-section (1C) of section 197A is subordinate.]” Page 7 of 10 ITA Nos 714 and 485 and its COs Telangana Grameena Bank Hyderabad. 11. We find that the sub-rule 6 to Rule 29C has come in to the statute book only w.e.f. 1.10.2015 whereas the relevant A.Ys before

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. HINDUJA NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed

ITA 235/HYD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.235/Hyd/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) The Assistant M/S. Hinduja National Power Commissioner Of Income Vs. Corporation Ltd. Tax, Circle 2(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aabch2426D अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri K. A. Sai Prasad, C.A. रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri B. Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr.

For Appellant: Shri K. A. Sai Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 32ASection 92C

1A) where an assessee, being a company, engaged in the business of manufacture or production of any article or thing the incentive of additional depreciation was not considered for power generation companies. However, the said incentive of additional depreciation was extended to the power generation companies by an amendment to the section 32(1)(ila) by including the power generation

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD vs. PRAVARDHAN SEEDS PRIAVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2091/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sunku Srinivas, CIT-DR

Section 10(1)Section 2

disallowance of claim under section 10(1) of the Act was made, but was made consequent to the order under section 263 of the Act. It is also not in dispute that the order under section 263 as well as the order under section 143(3) read with section 263 of the Act were quashed. It is also

DEMI REALTORS,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes on the above terms

ITA 156/HYD/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Respondent: Ms. T. Vijaya Lakhsmi, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 40a

disallowed U/s.40A(3) and is added to the total income of the assessee. 14.1 On appeal, the ld.CIT(A) had decided the issue at pages 70 to 74 of the order wherein he observed as under : “The claim of the appellant that the payments have been made by the M/s. DLF group is false and completely unsubstantiated and no confirmation

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. VAMSI MOHAN VALLABHANENI, VIJAYAWADA

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

ITA 324/HYD/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaassessment Year: 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. Sri Vamsi Mohan Vallabhaneni, Tax, R/O.Vijayawada. Central Circle – 3(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Adrpv4231C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.A. Revenue By: Ms. M. Narmadha, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.12.2024 10.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement:

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. M. Narmadha, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153C

disallowance of deduction claimed under sections 10AA, 80- IA, 80-IAB, 80-IB, 80-IC, 80-ID or section 80-IE, if the return is furnished beyond the due date specified under sub- section (1) of section 139; or (vi) addition of income appearing in Form 26AS or Form 16A or Form 16 which has not been included in computing

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. SUSHEE PRASAD JV, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed

ITA 457/HYD/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Mar 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Sushee Prasad Jv, Hyderabad, Income Tax, Circle – 6(1), Plot No.246/A/2, Road Hyderabad. No.12, Mla Colony, Banjara Hills, Telangana – 500034. Pan : Aapas3540R. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri S. Ramarao, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri Sesha Srinivas, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.03.2024

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramarao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sesha Srinivas, CIT-DR

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)Section 40Section 40a

disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) cannot be made if the assessee is not deemed to be an assessee in default under the first proviso to section 201(1) of the Act. The first proviso to subsection (1) of section 201 provides that a person who is liable to make TDS but fails to do so, shall not be deemed

SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY LIMITED,KOTHAGUDEM vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-1, KHAMMAM

In the result, assessee’s appeals for the A

ITA 284/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.283, 284 & 286/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21) Singareni Collieries Vs. Acit, Circle – 1 Company Limited Khammam & Kothagudem Acit, Circle 13(1) Pan:Aaact8873F Hyderabad & आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.300, 301 & 308/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21) Vs. Singareni Collieries Dy. Cit, Circle 13(1) Company Limited Hyderabad Kothagudem Pan:Aaact8873F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V.Anil Kumar, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B Balakrishna, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 10/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/06/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench: These 3 Sets Of Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Are Directed Against The 3 Separate Orders All Dated 30/01/2024 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, For The A.Ys 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21 Respectively. The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Have Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeals For 3 A.Ys:

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Anil Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri B Balakrishna, CIT (DR)

disallowed and added to the total income. Addition: Rs.272,15,43,386/-“ 16. We further note that for the A.Y 2016-17, the learned CIT (A) has called for a remand report on this issue and after considering the remand report has confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer when the assessee has failed to establish that the plant & machinery

DCIT., CIRCLE-13(1), HYDERABAD vs. THE SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY LIMITED, KOTHAGUDEM

In the result, assessee’s appeals for the A

ITA 308/HYD/2024[AY-2020-2]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.283, 284 & 286/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21) Singareni Collieries Vs. Acit, Circle – 1 Company Limited Khammam & Kothagudem Acit, Circle 13(1) Pan:Aaact8873F Hyderabad & आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.300, 301 & 308/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21) Vs. Singareni Collieries Dy. Cit, Circle 13(1) Company Limited Hyderabad Kothagudem Pan:Aaact8873F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V.Anil Kumar, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B Balakrishna, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 10/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/06/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench: These 3 Sets Of Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Are Directed Against The 3 Separate Orders All Dated 30/01/2024 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, For The A.Ys 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21 Respectively. The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Have Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeals For 3 A.Ys:

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Anil Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri B Balakrishna, CIT (DR)

disallowed and added to the total income. Addition: Rs.272,15,43,386/-“ 16. We further note that for the A.Y 2016-17, the learned CIT (A) has called for a remand report on this issue and after considering the remand report has confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer when the assessee has failed to establish that the plant & machinery

SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY LIMITED,KOTHAGUDEM vs. ACIT., CIRCLE- 1, KHAMMAM

In the result, assessee’s appeals for the A

ITA 283/HYD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.283, 284 & 286/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21) Singareni Collieries Vs. Acit, Circle – 1 Company Limited Khammam & Kothagudem Acit, Circle 13(1) Pan:Aaact8873F Hyderabad & आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.300, 301 & 308/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21) Vs. Singareni Collieries Dy. Cit, Circle 13(1) Company Limited Hyderabad Kothagudem Pan:Aaact8873F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V.Anil Kumar, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B Balakrishna, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 10/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/06/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench: These 3 Sets Of Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Are Directed Against The 3 Separate Orders All Dated 30/01/2024 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, For The A.Ys 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21 Respectively. The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Have Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeals For 3 A.Ys:

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Anil Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri B Balakrishna, CIT (DR)

disallowed and added to the total income. Addition: Rs.272,15,43,386/-“ 16. We further note that for the A.Y 2016-17, the learned CIT (A) has called for a remand report on this issue and after considering the remand report has confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer when the assessee has failed to establish that the plant & machinery

DCIT., CIRCLE-13(1), HYDERABAD vs. THE SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY LTD, KOTHAGUDEM

In the result, assessee’s appeals for the A

ITA 300/HYD/2024[2015--16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.283, 284 & 286/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21) Singareni Collieries Vs. Acit, Circle – 1 Company Limited Khammam & Kothagudem Acit, Circle 13(1) Pan:Aaact8873F Hyderabad & आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.300, 301 & 308/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21) Vs. Singareni Collieries Dy. Cit, Circle 13(1) Company Limited Hyderabad Kothagudem Pan:Aaact8873F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V.Anil Kumar, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B Balakrishna, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 10/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/06/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench: These 3 Sets Of Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Are Directed Against The 3 Separate Orders All Dated 30/01/2024 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, For The A.Ys 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21 Respectively. The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Have Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeals For 3 A.Ys:

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Anil Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri B Balakrishna, CIT (DR)

disallowed and added to the total income. Addition: Rs.272,15,43,386/-“ 16. We further note that for the A.Y 2016-17, the learned CIT (A) has called for a remand report on this issue and after considering the remand report has confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer when the assessee has failed to establish that the plant & machinery

ANALOGICS TECH INDIA LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 247/HYD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri A. Srinivas, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Sr

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 37Section 37(1)

disallowance under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. Accordingly, this ground of appeal is dismissed. 12. Ground No.2 Before us, ld.AR for the assessee submitted that the assessee had paid an amount of Rs.12,19,9361/- as interest on delayed payments of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS). The ld. AR further submitted that the interest paid on late

DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD vs. DBS TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 151/HYD/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Dbs Technology Income Tax, Services India Private Circle – 8(1), Limited, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aafcd5584N (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No.2/Hyd/2023 Assessment Year 2019-20 Dbs Technology Services India Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Circle – 8(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aafcd5584N (Cross Objector / (Appellant/Revenue) Respondent) Assessee By: Sri M. P. Lohia, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.07.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, Jm: The Appeal & Cross-Objection Filed By The Revenue For A.Y. 2019-20 Arise From The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi

For Appellant: Sri M. P. Lohia, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, CIT-DR

Section 10ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)

disallowance, and also in a case where NO response is received, then within thirty days of the issue of such intimation, department is free to make such adjustment. 8. On going through the above intimation made under section 143(1), CPC has not followed the above provisos by giving proper opportunity to the assessee to defend its case

MOHAMMED GHANI QURESHI,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY

ITA 448/HYD/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Smt. Momina AlamFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey

Section 148Section 54BSection 54F

disallowing the exemption under section 54F of Income Tax Act, 1961. 8. That, any other ground(s) that may arise at the time of hearing.” 14. The ld. AR submitted that the assessee’s wife Mahmooda Begum is the owner and by “HIBA”, she has transferred the property right to her husband, 3 sons and retained 39% to herself

MOHAMED JAMAL QURESHI,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY

ITA 451/HYD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Smt. Momina AlamFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey

Section 148Section 54BSection 54F

disallowing the exemption under section 54F of Income Tax Act, 1961. 8. That, any other ground(s) that may arise at the time of hearing.” 14. The ld. AR submitted that the assessee’s wife Mahmooda Begum is the owner and by “HIBA”, she has transferred the property right to her husband, 3 sons and retained 39% to herself

MOHAMMED SAYEED QURESHI,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY

ITA 453/HYD/2018[2009/10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Mar 2019

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Smt. Momina AlamFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey

Section 148Section 54BSection 54F

disallowing the exemption under section 54F of Income Tax Act, 1961. 8. That, any other ground(s) that may arise at the time of hearing.” 14. The ld. AR submitted that the assessee’s wife Mahmooda Begum is the owner and by “HIBA”, she has transferred the property right to her husband, 3 sons and retained 39% to herself

MOHAMMED JAML QURESHI,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY

ITA 450/HYD/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Smt. Momina AlamFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey

Section 148Section 54BSection 54F

disallowing the exemption under section 54F of Income Tax Act, 1961. 8. That, any other ground(s) that may arise at the time of hearing.” 14. The ld. AR submitted that the assessee’s wife Mahmooda Begum is the owner and by “HIBA”, she has transferred the property right to her husband, 3 sons and retained 39% to herself