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.

7 results for “house property”+ Section 144Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai25Delhi22Patna19Bangalore14Jaipur12Kolkata11Lucknow10Pune8Raipur7Chennai7Hyderabad7Indore5Surat4Cuttack4Ahmedabad2Nagpur2Chandigarh2Amritsar2Rajkot2Allahabad1Orissa1Cochin1SC1

Key Topics

Section 26319Section 144A8Section 56(2)(vii)6Section 285Revision u/s 2635Section 143(3)4Section 50C4Section 50C(2)4Section 50C(1)4Reassessment

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. PRAKASH NIMMAGADDA, HYDERABAD, SECUNDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 974/HYD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Dec 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.974/Hyd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09) Dy.Cit Vs. Shri Prakash Nimmagadda Circle 1(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Acbpn4246R (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Meghnath Chowhan, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 16/12/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order, Dated 20/03/2017 Of The Learned Cit (A)-9, Hyderabad, Relating To A.Y.2008-09. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds:

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, CAFor Respondent: : Dr. Meghnath Chowhan, CIT(DR)
Section 17(2)(c)Section 28

144A in the case of M/s. Alpha Avenues Pvt Ltd during which assessee has justified the premium charged to M/s. Cornerstone Properties Investments Pvt Ltd. The assessee is a promoter director and also the family member which runs the business of M/s. Alpha Avenues Pvt Ltd., which is a closely held company. It can be said that M/s. Alpha Avenues

4
Limitation/Time-bar4
Addition to Income3

HIMASAGAR KRISHNA MUTHAPPAGARI,TIRUPATI vs. ITO., WARD-2(3), TIRUPATI

ITA 687/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Us.

For Appellant: Shri M. Uday Teja, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. M. Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

house, therefore, no adverse inferences were liable to be drawn as regards his claim of exemption raised u/s 54F of the Act. Elaborating further, it was the assessee's claim that though as per the terms of the original “agreement to purchase” a Villa No. 48 was allotted to him by the builder, but thereafter due to some internal problems

JYOTHI BHANOTH ,KHAMMAM vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KHAMMAM

ITA 265/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Jan 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year:2014-15 Jyothi Bhanoth, Vs. Acit, Khammam. Circle-1, Pan: Anopb 4718 R Khammam. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri T. Chaitanya Kumar Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 15/12/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 21/01/2021 Order Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Am.:

For Appellant: Shri T. Chaitanya KumarFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(vii)

144A of the Act vide his order dated 29/12/2018. The value of the property was so arrived by the Revenue considering the facts and circumstances of the case of the assessee and keeping in view of its inherent disadvantages of the property. Therefore, even if section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act is invoked, the sale consideration cannot

RAMESH MITTAPALLI,KHAMMAM vs. ITO WARD-1 KHAMMAM, KHAMMAM

ITA 235/HYD/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Anil KumarFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar
Section 144ASection 263Section 50CSection 50C(1)Section 50C(2)

section 50C to this case and the total consideration is deemed to be the Market Value of the property which is at Rs. 4,39,23,056/-. But the assessee/AR argued that the market value of the property as on the date of agreement is much lower than the value as on the date of registration

NAVEEN MITTAPALLI,KHAMMAM vs. ITO WARD-1 KHAMMAM, KHAMMAM

ITA 233/HYD/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Anil KumarFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar
Section 144ASection 263Section 50CSection 50C(1)Section 50C(2)

section 50C to this case and the total consideration is deemed to be the Market Value of the property which is at Rs. 4,39,23,056/-. But the assessee/AR argued that the market value of the property as on the date of agreement is much lower than the value as on the date of registration

VIJAYA LAKSHMI MITTAPALLI,KHAMMAM vs. ITO WARD-1 KHAMMAM, KHAMMAM

ITA 232/HYD/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Anil KumarFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar
Section 144ASection 263Section 50CSection 50C(1)Section 50C(2)

section 50C to this case and the total consideration is deemed to be the Market Value of the property which is at Rs. 4,39,23,056/-. But the assessee/AR argued that the market value of the property as on the date of agreement is much lower than the value as on the date of registration

MURALI KRISHNA MITTAPALLI,KHAMMAM vs. ITO WARD-1 KHAMMAM, KHAMMAM

ITA 234/HYD/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Anil KumarFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar
Section 144ASection 263Section 50CSection 50C(1)Section 50C(2)

section 50C to this case and the total consideration is deemed to be the Market Value of the property which is at Rs. 4,39,23,056/-. But the assessee/AR argued that the market value of the property as on the date of agreement is much lower than the value as on the date of registration