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.

4 results for “house property”+ Section 273Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Bangalore27Jaipur21Mumbai21Karnataka21Ahmedabad18Delhi9Visakhapatnam9Chennai8Cochin7Amritsar6Cuttack6Pune5Hyderabad4Kolkata2Guwahati2Surat2SC1Nagpur1Varanasi1Rajkot1

Key Topics

Section 271D39Section 269S15Section 273B4Penalty4Section 2743Section 2713Natural Justice3Section 271E2Addition to Income2

KESIREDDY RAVINDER REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. ITO WARD-11(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 1617/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.1617 & 1722/Hyd/2025

For Appellant: Sri Mohd Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 143(1)Section 269SSection 271DSection 274Section 275

273B of the Act. We noted that the provisions of Section 269SS of the Act was amended w.e.f. 01.06.2015 to include the 'specified sum' within its ambit and the said term was defined in Explanation to the said Section which is reproduced as under: O "specified sum" means any sum of money receivable, whether as advance or otherwise, in relation

DAMODAR RAO BIBINAGAR,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-13(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 609/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Damodar Rao Bibinagar, Vs. The Additional 1-8-74/6, Commissioner Of Income Chikkadapally, Tax, Hyderabad, Hyderabad. Telangana – 500020. Pan : Afjpb5620F. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate. Revenue By: Ms. Harshita Chouhan, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 26/12/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 27/12/2023

For Appellant: Sri A.V. Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Harshita Chouhan, SR.AR
Section 269SSection 271Section 271DSection 273BSection 274

273B of the Act confers discretion on the authorities to not to levy in deserving cases, like the present case.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that assessee had sold property situated at H.No.1-54, New No-5-14-106, Plot No.54 in Survey No. 16 at Indira Nagar, Phase-Il, Meerpet Village, Kapra, Ranga Reddy Dist

HOMOEOPATH TOUFEEQ AHMED,HYDERABAD vs. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-9, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 512/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri S. Phanindra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Waseem UR Rehman, DR
Section 269SSection 271DSection 271ESection 273B

house bearing Municipal No. 16-9-433/1, admeasuring 407.7 Sq. Yards or equivalent to 340.91 Sq. Meters, situated at old Malakpet, near Race Course, Hyderabad for an amount of Rs. 41,53,000/- and accepted Rs. 41,53,000/- in cash in contravention to the provision of section 269SS of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), learned Assessing

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

property. This should be paid as per demand notice u/s. 156 enclosed MOHAN KUMAR R RANGE-9, HYDERABAD Addl. Commr. of Income Tax, Range-9, Hyderabad.” 6. Thus, it is clear from the impugned order u/sec.271D that there was no Reference by the Assessing Officer and also there were no assessment proceedings or any other proceedings in the case