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.

146 results for “house property”+ Section 153Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi599Mumbai352Bangalore276Chennai158Hyderabad146Jaipur144Cochin127Chandigarh65Amritsar61Visakhapatnam54Ahmedabad46Pune35Indore29Patna23Guwahati23Surat19Karnataka16Agra16Rajkot16Nagpur15Lucknow12Kolkata11Raipur10Kerala7Cuttack3Jodhpur2Allahabad2Telangana2Varanasi2Dehradun1SC1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 153C155Section 13287Addition to Income69Search & Seizure69Section 143(3)62Section 153A59Section 139(1)40Section 6933Section 80I24House Property

VENKATESH GANGAKHEDKAR,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE- 9(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for all the four assessment years are allowed

ITA 903/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: CA, C. Maheswar ReddyFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. AR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153C

house property reducing standard deduction at Rs.12,51,600/- ] 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee has challenged the initiation of proceedings under section 153C

VENKATESH GANGAKHEDKAR,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-9(1), HYDERABAD

Showing 1–20 of 146 · Page 1 of 8

...
24
Section 271(1)(c)18
Penalty17

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for all the four assessment years are allowed

ITA 902/HYD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: CA, C. Maheswar ReddyFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. AR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153C

house property reducing standard deduction at Rs.12,51,600/- ] 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee has challenged the initiation of proceedings under section 153C

VENKATESH GANGAKHEDKAR ,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-9(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for all the four assessment years are allowed

ITA 904/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: CA, C. Maheswar ReddyFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. AR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153C

house property reducing standard deduction at Rs.12,51,600/- ] 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee has challenged the initiation of proceedings under section 153C

VENKATESH GANGAKHEDKAR,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-9(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for all the four assessment years are allowed

ITA 901/HYD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: CA, C. Maheswar ReddyFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. AR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153C

house property reducing standard deduction at Rs.12,51,600/- ] 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee has challenged the initiation of proceedings under section 153C

SUDHIR KUMAR.D.SHAH - HUF,HYDERABAD vs. DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, HYDERABAD

ITA 1871/HYD/2013[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Oct 2019AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri K.C.Devdas, ARFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153C

property at Chilkoor Village, which was confirmed and admitted by Shri Apoorva Shah, nephew of the assessee in the statement recorded from him u/s.132A of the Act on 09-10-2007. Therefore held that the proceedings u/s.153C of the Act were rightly initiated and dismissed the contentions raised by the assessee. Similarly, on merits the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeals

SUDHIR KUMAR.D.SHAH - HUF,HYDERABAD vs. DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, HYDERABAD

ITA 1872/HYD/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Oct 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri K.C.Devdas, ARFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153C

property at Chilkoor Village, which was confirmed and admitted by Shri Apoorva Shah, nephew of the assessee in the statement recorded from him u/s.132A of the Act on 09-10-2007. Therefore held that the proceedings u/s.153C of the Act were rightly initiated and dismissed the contentions raised by the assessee. Similarly, on merits the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeals

SUDHIR KUMAR.D.SHAH - HUF,HYDERABAD vs. DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, HYDERABAD

ITA 1874/HYD/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Oct 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri K.C.Devdas, ARFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153C

property at Chilkoor Village, which was confirmed and admitted by Shri Apoorva Shah, nephew of the assessee in the statement recorded from him u/s.132A of the Act on 09-10-2007. Therefore held that the proceedings u/s.153C of the Act were rightly initiated and dismissed the contentions raised by the assessee. Similarly, on merits the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeals

SUDHIR KUMAR.D.SHAH - HUF,HYDERABAD vs. DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, HYDERABAD

ITA 1875/HYD/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Oct 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri K.C.Devdas, ARFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153C

property at Chilkoor Village, which was confirmed and admitted by Shri Apoorva Shah, nephew of the assessee in the statement recorded from him u/s.132A of the Act on 09-10-2007. Therefore held that the proceedings u/s.153C of the Act were rightly initiated and dismissed the contentions raised by the assessee. Similarly, on merits the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeals

SUDHIR KUMAR.D.SHAH - HUF,HYDERABAD vs. DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, HYDERABAD

ITA 1876/HYD/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Oct 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri K.C.Devdas, ARFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153C

property at Chilkoor Village, which was confirmed and admitted by Shri Apoorva Shah, nephew of the assessee in the statement recorded from him u/s.132A of the Act on 09-10-2007. Therefore held that the proceedings u/s.153C of the Act were rightly initiated and dismissed the contentions raised by the assessee. Similarly, on merits the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeals

SUDHIR KUMAR.D.SHAH - HUF,HYDERABAD vs. DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, HYDERABAD

ITA 1873/HYD/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Oct 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri K.C.Devdas, ARFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153C

property at Chilkoor Village, which was confirmed and admitted by Shri Apoorva Shah, nephew of the assessee in the statement recorded from him u/s.132A of the Act on 09-10-2007. Therefore held that the proceedings u/s.153C of the Act were rightly initiated and dismissed the contentions raised by the assessee. Similarly, on merits the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeals

SUDHIR KUMAR.D.SHAH - HUF,HYDERABAD vs. DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, HYDERABAD

ITA 1877/HYD/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Oct 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri K.C.Devdas, ARFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153C

property at Chilkoor Village, which was confirmed and admitted by Shri Apoorva Shah, nephew of the assessee in the statement recorded from him u/s.132A of the Act on 09-10-2007. Therefore held that the proceedings u/s.153C of the Act were rightly initiated and dismissed the contentions raised by the assessee. Similarly, on merits the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeals

SIVA PRASAD REDDY BUCHEPALLI,CHIMAKURTHY vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 301/HYD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. T.H. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 69

153C is not valid and consequent Assessment is bad in law. 3. On the facts and circumstance of the case, the Learned CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the addition made of Rs. 42,38,128/- under Section 69 of the I.T.Act. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) would have appreciated that

SIVA PRASAD REDDY BUCHEPALLI,CHIMAKURTHY vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 300/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. T.H. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 69

153C is not valid and consequent Assessment is bad in law. 3. On the facts and circumstance of the case, the Learned CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the addition made of Rs. 42,38,128/- under Section 69 of the I.T.Act. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) would have appreciated that

NAGA LAKSHMI BUCHEPALLI,CHIMAKURTHY vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 322/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. T.H. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 69

153C is not valid and consequent Assessment is bad in law. 3. On the facts and circumstance of the case, the Learned CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the addition made of Rs. 42,38,128/- under Section 69 of the I.T.Act. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) would have appreciated that

NAGA LAKSHMI BUCHEPALLI,CHIMAKURTHY vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 323/HYD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. T.H. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 69

153C is not valid and consequent Assessment is bad in law. 3. On the facts and circumstance of the case, the Learned CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the addition made of Rs. 42,38,128/- under Section 69 of the I.T.Act. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) would have appreciated that

RAMESH CHANDRA MAJITHIA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 302/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. T.H. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 69

153C is not valid and consequent Assessment is bad in law. 3. On the facts and circumstance of the case, the Learned CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the addition made of Rs. 42,38,128/- under Section 69 of the I.T.Act. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) would have appreciated that

EXEL RUBBER PRIVATE LIMITED,K.V.RANGAREDDY vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 1109/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G.

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CA
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148BSection 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 151

property, interest received on loans advanced, repayment of such loans advanced by M/s Exel Group and its Management in their individual capacity. I would like to further state that amounts mentioned in the table above for different financial years include amounts realized from the debtors to whom either the Group concerns or the individual directors have advanced loans earlier which

EXEL RUBBER PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 1108/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G.

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CA
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148BSection 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 151

property, interest received on loans advanced, repayment of such loans advanced by M/s Exel Group and its Management in their individual capacity. I would like to further state that amounts mentioned in the table above for different financial years include amounts realized from the debtors to whom either the Group concerns or the individual directors have advanced loans earlier which

TRICITIES SECURITY AND ALLIED SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 14/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl.No.

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 69

Section 153C of the Act. The reasons recorded in the satisfaction note cannot be improved upon or supplemented or substituted subsequently by learned CIT(A) by making reference to the seized annexures and agreements which are not part of the satisfaction note. Hence the findings of the Learned CIT(A) are against law and facts. The proposition that addition cannot

GARUDAPALLY SHRUTHI GUPTA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 10/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl.No.

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 69

Section 153C of the Act. The reasons recorded in the satisfaction note cannot be improved upon or supplemented or substituted subsequently by learned CIT(A) by making reference to the seized annexures and agreements which are not part of the satisfaction note. Hence the findings of the Learned CIT(A) are against law and facts. The proposition that addition cannot