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.

3 results for “house property”+ Section 260Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi266Mumbai118Karnataka61Calcutta51Telangana41Bangalore35Chennai27Jaipur21Ahmedabad19Kolkata17Cochin14SC12Amritsar11Nagpur7Raipur6Indore5Kerala5Surat4Hyderabad3Allahabad3Cuttack3Visakhapatnam2Gauhati2Jodhpur2Lucknow2Rajasthan1Pune1J&K1T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1Varanasi1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1

Key Topics

Section 271D15Section 2635Section 143(3)5Section 374Section 269S2Section 11(1)(a)2

SOMIREDDY SUDHAKAR REDDY,IBRAHIMPATNAM vs. ITO., WARD-9(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1505/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1505/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Somireddy Sudhakar The Income Tax Officer, Reddy, Ibrahimpatnam Vs. Ward-9(1), Pin -501 506. R R Dist. Hyderabad. Pan Bghps3108R (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Sri Mohd. Afzal, Advocate राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Sri Abhinav Pittal, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Sri Mohd. Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri Abhinav Pittal, Sr. AR
Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 274

house bearing Municipal No.17-1- 336/1/29, Plot No.29, situated at S.N. Reddy Nagar, Saidabad, Hyderabad for a total sole consideration of Rs.43,50,000/- vide Sale deed No 4535/2016, dated 12.09.2016. During this transaction, the vendor accepted Rs.43,50,000/- in cash in contravention to the provision of Section 269SS of the Income-tax Act, 1961 which attracts penalty u/s.271D. Section

ACIT., EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs. PHARMACEUTICALS EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL OF INDIA, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed

ITA 1199/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2016-17 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. Pharmaceuticals Export Of Income Tax, Promotion Council Of India, Exemptions, Circle – 1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aadcp4643C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rv. Chalam, C.A. Revenue By: Shri B. Balakrishna, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.02.2025

For Appellant: Shri RV. Chalam, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Balakrishna, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12(1)Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144

260A of the Act is not so wide as writ jurisdiction. We have no such discretion in the absence of any specific provision in the Act. We are accordingly unable to accept the request of the assessee. 31. We, therefore, hold that the amount of `38,29,535/- spent by the assessee-trust in Hanover, Germany cannot be considered

BBR PROJECTS LIMITED,,HYDERABAD vs. ITO WARD-1(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 113/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S.Bbr Projects Private Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Limited, Ward – 1(14), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aaccb7153J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue By: Shri Vijay Bhaskar Reddy – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.10.2022

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Bhaskar Reddy –
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 37Section 40

properties and therefore, the conclusion drawn by the ld.PCIT was incorrect. 15. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative has drawn our attention to the computation of income for A.Y. 2015-16 wherein the revenue from operation has been shown as nil and therefore, the ld.PCIT was right in disallowing the expenditure and rightly held that the same