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.

44 results for “house property”+ Section 245D(4)clear

Sorted by relevance

Hyderabad44Mumbai27Kolkata13Delhi11Bangalore6Chandigarh5Jaipur4Chennai4Pune3Lucknow2Indore2SC2Jodhpur1

Key Topics

Section 153C49Section 6946Section 13245Section 139(1)44Addition to Income44Search & Seizure44Section 143(2)6House Property6Limitation/Time-bar

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

Section 69 of the I.T.Act. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) would have appreciated that the satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer is not Assessment Year specific and without Jurisdiction. 5. On the facts and circumstance of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has not observed the fact that the third party statement

Showing 1–20 of 44 · Page 1 of 3

5
Section 143(3)2

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

Section 69 of the I.T.Act. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) would have appreciated that the satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer is not Assessment Year specific and without Jurisdiction. 5. On the facts and circumstance of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has not observed the fact that the third party statement

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

Section 69 of the I.T.Act. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) would have appreciated that the satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer is not Assessment Year specific and without Jurisdiction. 5. On the facts and circumstance of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has not observed the fact that the third party statement

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

Section 69 of the I.T.Act. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) would have appreciated that the satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer is not Assessment Year specific and without Jurisdiction. 5. On the facts and circumstance of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has not observed the fact that the third party statement

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

Section 69 of the I.T.Act. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) would have appreciated that the satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer is not Assessment Year specific and without Jurisdiction. 5. On the facts and circumstance of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has not observed the fact that the third party statement

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. VISHNU MOHAN REDDY CHINTAPALLY, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 8/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Apr 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar(Through Virtual Mode) & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accounant Member Assessment Year: 2019-20 Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Sri Vishnu Mohan Reddy Income Tax, Chintapally, Villa No.A96, Central Circle – 2(3), Sy.No.25, Hill Ridge Villas, Hyderabad. Isb Road, Gachibowli, Hyderabad - 500032. Pan : Agbpc0373K. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 24.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.04.2024

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Sr.AR
Section 115BSection 127Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 245D(4)Section 271A

4. Whether the CIT(A) is correct in holding that there is no evidence in the seized document that the developers M/S KMR Estates and Builders Pvt. Ltd. has received any amount from the assessee till the date of search ? 3. The brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual and derives income from House Property & Income

PULLALAREVU ANUSHA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 25/HYD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

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

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 69

245D(4) of the Act. 4.4. In light of the above, with respect to the Villa No.29 purchased by the assessee from M/s. KMR Estate and Builders Pvt. Ltd, it is evident that the assessee has paid Rs.3,49,73,003/- to the developer (Rs.1,93,73,003/- through bank and Rs.1,56,00,000/- in cash). In this connection

PULLALAREVU ANUSHA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 24/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

245D(4) of the Act. 4.4. In light of the above, with respect to the Villa No.29 purchased by the assessee from M/s. KMR Estate and Builders Pvt. Ltd, it is evident that the assessee has paid Rs.3,49,73,003/- to the developer (Rs.1,93,73,003/- through bank and Rs.1,56,00,000/- in cash). In this connection

KANIPAKAM HARI PRASAD REDDY ,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 21/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

245D(4) of the Act. 4.4. In light of the above, with respect to the Villa No.29 purchased by the assessee from M/s. KMR Estate and Builders Pvt. Ltd, it is evident that the assessee has paid Rs.3,49,73,003/- to the developer (Rs.1,93,73,003/- through bank and Rs.1,56,00,000/- in cash). In this connection

RAMA SUBBA REDDY KUDUMULA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 38/HYD/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Feb 2023AY 2019-20

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

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 69

245D(4) of the Act. 4.4. In light of the above, with respect to the Villa No.29 purchased by the assessee from M/s. KMR Estate and Builders Pvt. Ltd, it is evident that the assessee has paid Rs.3,49,73,003/- to the developer (Rs.1,93,73,003/- through bank and Rs.1,56,00,000/- in cash). In this connection

GAVIREDDYGARI HARIKISHORE REDDY,ANANTHAPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 4/HYD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

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

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 69

245D(4) of the Act. 4.4. In light of the above, with respect to the Villa No.29 purchased by the assessee from M/s. KMR Estate and Builders Pvt. Ltd, it is evident that the assessee has paid Rs.3,49,73,003/- to the developer (Rs.1,93,73,003/- through bank and Rs.1,56,00,000/- in cash). In this connection

VAMSI KRISHNA REDDY GOTEKE,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 44/HYD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Feb 2023AY 2016-17

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

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 69

245D(4) of the Act. 4.4. In light of the above, with respect to the Villa No.29 purchased by the assessee from M/s. KMR Estate and Builders Pvt. Ltd, it is evident that the assessee has paid Rs.3,49,73,003/- to the developer (Rs.1,93,73,003/- through bank and Rs.1,56,00,000/- in cash). In this connection

VAMSI KRISHNA REDDY GOTEKE,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 45/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

245D(4) of the Act. 4.4. In light of the above, with respect to the Villa No.29 purchased by the assessee from M/s. KMR Estate and Builders Pvt. Ltd, it is evident that the assessee has paid Rs.3,49,73,003/- to the developer (Rs.1,93,73,003/- through bank and Rs.1,56,00,000/- in cash). In this connection

VAMSI KRISHNA REDDY GOTEKE,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 46/HYD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

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

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 69

245D(4) of the Act. 4.4. In light of the above, with respect to the Villa No.29 purchased by the assessee from M/s. KMR Estate and Builders Pvt. Ltd, it is evident that the assessee has paid Rs.3,49,73,003/- to the developer (Rs.1,93,73,003/- through bank and Rs.1,56,00,000/- in cash). In this connection

RAMA SUBBA REDDY KUDUMULA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 37/HYD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

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

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 69

245D(4) of the Act. 4.4. In light of the above, with respect to the Villa No.29 purchased by the assessee from M/s. KMR Estate and Builders Pvt. Ltd, it is evident that the assessee has paid Rs.3,49,73,003/- to the developer (Rs.1,93,73,003/- through bank and Rs.1,56,00,000/- in cash). In this connection

KANIPAKAM HARI PRASAD REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 23/HYD/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Feb 2023AY 2019-20

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

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 69

245D(4) of the Act. 4.4. In light of the above, with respect to the Villa No.29 purchased by the assessee from M/s. KMR Estate and Builders Pvt. Ltd, it is evident that the assessee has paid Rs.3,49,73,003/- to the developer (Rs.1,93,73,003/- through bank and Rs.1,56,00,000/- in cash). In this connection

SARITHA AGARWAL ,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 75/HYD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Feb 2023AY 2016-17

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

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 69

245D(4) of the Act. 4.4. In light of the above, with respect to the Villa No.29 purchased by the assessee from M/s. KMR Estate and Builders Pvt. Ltd, it is evident that the assessee has paid Rs.3,49,73,003/- to the developer (Rs.1,93,73,003/- through bank and Rs.1,56,00,000/- in cash). In this connection

ANDEM SANDHYA REDDY,RANGA REDDY vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 7/HYD/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Feb 2023AY 2019-20

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

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 69

245D(4) of the Act. 4.4. In light of the above, with respect to the Villa No.29 purchased by the assessee from M/s. KMR Estate and Builders Pvt. Ltd, it is evident that the assessee has paid Rs.3,49,73,003/- to the developer (Rs.1,93,73,003/- through bank and Rs.1,56,00,000/- in cash). In this connection

SARITHA AGARWAL,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 76/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

245D(4) of the Act. 4.4. In light of the above, with respect to the Villa No.29 purchased by the assessee from M/s. KMR Estate and Builders Pvt. Ltd, it is evident that the assessee has paid Rs.3,49,73,003/- to the developer (Rs.1,93,73,003/- through bank and Rs.1,56,00,000/- in cash). In this connection

GAVIREDDYGARI APARNA KALYANI,ANANTHAPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 3/HYD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

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

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 69

245D(4) of the Act. 4.4. In light of the above, with respect to the Villa No.29 purchased by the assessee from M/s. KMR Estate and Builders Pvt. Ltd, it is evident that the assessee has paid Rs.3,49,73,003/- to the developer (Rs.1,93,73,003/- through bank and Rs.1,56,00,000/- in cash). In this connection