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.

46 results for “disallowance”+ Section 53Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai73Delhi73Hyderabad46Chennai45Bangalore45Kolkata24Chandigarh20Indore17Ahmedabad16Pune8Jaipur7Raipur5Agra5Lucknow3Visakhapatnam3Cuttack2Telangana2Karnataka2Surat2Cochin1Ranchi1Rajkot1Nagpur1

Key Topics

Section 13244Section 153C30Section 14830Addition to Income28Disallowance26Section 54F23Capital Gains22Section 54B20Deduction19Section 56(2)(x)

PRAMOD REDDY TEKULA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

ITA 611/HYD/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri M. Chandramouleswara RaoFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr.AR
Section 132Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153C

disallowance of improvement expenses, thereby assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.44,51,425/- and passed assessment order on 18.02.2022 u/s 153C of the Act. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Assessing Officer, assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal of assessee. 5. Feeling aggrieved with the order of ld.CIT

Showing 1–20 of 46 · Page 1 of 3

17
Section 56(2)(vii)17
Section 5717

VENKAT RAJASEKHAR KONERU,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

ITA 627/HYD/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri M. Chandramouleswara RaoFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr.AR
Section 132Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153C

disallowance of improvement expenses, thereby assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.44,51,425/- and passed assessment order on 18.02.2022 u/s 153C of the Act. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Assessing Officer, assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal of assessee. 5. Feeling aggrieved with the order of ld.CIT

BANDI SUDHEER REDDY ,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

ITA 610/HYD/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri M. Chandramouleswara RaoFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr.AR
Section 132Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153C

disallowance of improvement expenses, thereby assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.44,51,425/- and passed assessment order on 18.02.2022 u/s 153C of the Act. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Assessing Officer, assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal of assessee. 5. Feeling aggrieved with the order of ld.CIT

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 452/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

MOHMOODA BEGUM,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 456/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

MOHAMMED ABBAS,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-15(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 454/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 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

MOHMOODA BEGUM,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 457/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

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

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

ITA 449/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 ABBAS,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 455/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 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

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, WARANGAL vs. GYANA KUMARI ROJANALA , WARANGAL

In the result the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1779/HYD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, ARFor Respondent: Dr. R. Deepak, D.R
Section 2(47)Section 45Section 53ASection 54Section 54F

disallowed the claim made by the assessee u/s 54 of the Act. Being aggrieved assessee went in appeal before the CIT(A) who granted partial relief to the assessee. 3. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us by raising the following grounds : “1. That the ld.CIT(A)’s action in allowing the appeal

RAMKY INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. JCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 593/HYD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Ramky Infrastructure Ltd, Vs. Joint Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income Tax, Pan:Aaacr8627B Circle 3(1), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram. Revenue By: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, Dr Date Of Hearing: 15/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 28/11/2022 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M

For Appellant: Shri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 80I

disallowance to be made for assessment years 2O03-04 to 2008-09. The assessment orders so passed have become final. 4. In respect of the assessment year 2009-10, the AO issued notice under section 153A of the Act and passed the assessment order dated 31.03.2015 under section 143(3) r.w.s. 53A

G BHOOPATHI REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-13(5), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 1951/HYD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B. Ramakotaiah & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri C.V. Narasimham, ARFor Respondent: Smt. N. Swapna, DR
Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)(v)Section 53ASection 54F

53A of the Transfer of Property Act were fulfilled on 11-08-2008 as per the provisions of Section 2(47)(v) and (vi). AO also relied on the following decisions: (i) Chaturbhuj Dwaraka Kapadia Vs. CIT (260 ITR 491) (Bom); (ii) Jasbir Singh Sarkaria (Advance Ruling) (294 ITR 196); (iii) Dr.T.Achutha Rao Vs. ACIT

DANDAMUDI AVANINDRA KUMAR,SECUNDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-11(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of Revenue and assessee for A

ITA 74/HYD/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos. 52 & 53/Hyd/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2009-10) The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Shri Dandamudi Avanindra Ward – 10(2), Kumar, 88, Gunrock Enclave, Hyderabad. Secunderabad. Pan : Acnpd1893R. अपीलार्थी / Assessee प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.73 & 74/Hyd/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2009-10) Shri Dandamudi Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Avanindra Kumar, 88, Ward – 10(2), Gunrock Enclave, Hyderabad. Secunderabad. Pan : Acnpd1893R. अपीलार्थी / Assessee प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri P. Jitendra Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. T.H Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 148

disallowances and finally assessed the total income at Rs.243,37,21,394/-. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the assessing officer, assessee filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A), who after examining the facts on record had granted partial relief to the assessee and confirmed part of the additions granted by the Assessing Officer and therefore, both the assessee

ITO, WARD-10(2), HYDERABAAD, HYDERABAD vs. SHRI DANDAMUDI AVANINDRA KUMAR, SECUNDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of Revenue and assessee for A

ITA 53/HYD/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos. 52 & 53/Hyd/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2009-10) The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Shri Dandamudi Avanindra Ward – 10(2), Kumar, 88, Gunrock Enclave, Hyderabad. Secunderabad. Pan : Acnpd1893R. अपीलार्थी / Assessee प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.73 & 74/Hyd/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2009-10) Shri Dandamudi Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Avanindra Kumar, 88, Ward – 10(2), Gunrock Enclave, Hyderabad. Secunderabad. Pan : Acnpd1893R. अपीलार्थी / Assessee प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri P. Jitendra Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. T.H Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 148

disallowances and finally assessed the total income at Rs.243,37,21,394/-. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the assessing officer, assessee filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A), who after examining the facts on record had granted partial relief to the assessee and confirmed part of the additions granted by the Assessing Officer and therefore, both the assessee

ITO, WARD-10(2), HYDERABAAD, HYDERABAD vs. SHRI DANDAMUDI AVANINDRA KUMAR, SECUNDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of Revenue and assessee for A

ITA 52/HYD/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Jun 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos. 52 & 53/Hyd/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2009-10) The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Shri Dandamudi Avanindra Ward – 10(2), Kumar, 88, Gunrock Enclave, Hyderabad. Secunderabad. Pan : Acnpd1893R. अपीलार्थी / Assessee प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.73 & 74/Hyd/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2009-10) Shri Dandamudi Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Avanindra Kumar, 88, Ward – 10(2), Gunrock Enclave, Hyderabad. Secunderabad. Pan : Acnpd1893R. अपीलार्थी / Assessee प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri P. Jitendra Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. T.H Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 148

disallowances and finally assessed the total income at Rs.243,37,21,394/-. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the assessing officer, assessee filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A), who after examining the facts on record had granted partial relief to the assessee and confirmed part of the additions granted by the Assessing Officer and therefore, both the assessee