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.

29 results for “house property”+ Section 282(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi189Mumbai158Bangalore101Jaipur53Chandigarh49Chennai33Hyderabad29Ahmedabad23Rajkot21Indore19Kolkata17Pune14Agra7Raipur7Surat5Nagpur4Jodhpur3Cuttack3Visakhapatnam3Amritsar3SC3Cochin2Guwahati1Lucknow1

Key Topics

Section 26316Section 153A15Section 13212Search & Seizure11Section 133A10Survey u/s 133A10Section 44A9Natural Justice9Comparables/TP

ANANTAPUR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE STAFF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,ANANTAPUR vs. ITO., WARD-1, ANANTAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1142/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.आआआ.आआ /Ita No.1142/Hyd/2024 (आआआआआआआआ आआआआ/Assessment Year:2016-17) M/S. Anantapur District Co- Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward-1, Anantapur. Operative Staff Co-Operative Society Limited, Anantapur. Pan:Aaeaa0133B (Appellant) (Respondent) आआआआआआआआआआ आआआआआआ/Assessee Dr. D. Harish Chandra Rama, Ca By: आआआआआआ आआआआआआ/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr-Dr आआआआआआ आआ आआआआआ/Date Of 24/02/2025 Hearing: आआआआआ आआ 04/03/2025 आआआआआ/Pronouncement: आआआआ/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By M/S. Anantapur District Co-Operative Staff Co-Operative Society Limited (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 05.09.2024 For The A.Y. 2016-17. 2. The Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Association Of Persons (“Aop”), Not Filed Any Return Of Income (“Roi”) U/S.139 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act'). From The Information

For Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, SR-DR
Section 139Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148A

Showing 1–20 of 29 · Page 1 of 2

9
Section 143(3)8
Depreciation5
Section 1484
Section 69A
Section 80P

property. ITA No.1142/Hyd/2024 3 4.1 The Ld. AR submitted that, the assessee is an employees co-operative society which is for the benefit of Anantapur District “co-operative staff”. The co-operative society has been formed with the object to accept deposits from the employee members and to advance loans to the employee members only. In the course of regular

VARSHA VISWANATH PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1907/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Ms. TH. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 153A

282 (Chennai Trib.) and Dr. Aman Khera Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax reported in 138 ITD 443 (Delhi), he submitted that since the assessee did not perform all the obligations as agreed to, the entire Page 25 of 46 M/s. Varsha Viswanath Properties Private Limited batch amount cannot be treated as income, but only estimated income can be adopted

VARSHA VISWANATH PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1908/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Ms. TH. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 153A

282 (Chennai Trib.) and Dr. Aman Khera Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax reported in 138 ITD 443 (Delhi), he submitted that since the assessee did not perform all the obligations as agreed to, the entire Page 25 of 46 M/s. Varsha Viswanath Properties Private Limited batch amount cannot be treated as income, but only estimated income can be adopted

VARSHA VISWANATH PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1909/HYD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Ms. TH. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 153A

282 (Chennai Trib.) and Dr. Aman Khera Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax reported in 138 ITD 443 (Delhi), he submitted that since the assessee did not perform all the obligations as agreed to, the entire Page 25 of 46 M/s. Varsha Viswanath Properties Private Limited batch amount cannot be treated as income, but only estimated income can be adopted

VARSHA VISWANATH PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1910/HYD/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Ms. TH. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 153A

282 (Chennai Trib.) and Dr. Aman Khera Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax reported in 138 ITD 443 (Delhi), he submitted that since the assessee did not perform all the obligations as agreed to, the entire Page 25 of 46 M/s. Varsha Viswanath Properties Private Limited batch amount cannot be treated as income, but only estimated income can be adopted

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. VARSHA VISWANATH PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2046/HYD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Ms. TH. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 153A

282 (Chennai Trib.) and Dr. Aman Khera Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax reported in 138 ITD 443 (Delhi), he submitted that since the assessee did not perform all the obligations as agreed to, the entire Page 25 of 46 M/s. Varsha Viswanath Properties Private Limited batch amount cannot be treated as income, but only estimated income can be adopted

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. VARSHA VISWANATH PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2047/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Ms. TH. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 153A

282 (Chennai Trib.) and Dr. Aman Khera Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax reported in 138 ITD 443 (Delhi), he submitted that since the assessee did not perform all the obligations as agreed to, the entire Page 25 of 46 M/s. Varsha Viswanath Properties Private Limited batch amount cannot be treated as income, but only estimated income can be adopted

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. VARSHA VISWANATH PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2048/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Ms. TH. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 153A

282 (Chennai Trib.) and Dr. Aman Khera Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax reported in 138 ITD 443 (Delhi), he submitted that since the assessee did not perform all the obligations as agreed to, the entire Page 25 of 46 M/s. Varsha Viswanath Properties Private Limited batch amount cannot be treated as income, but only estimated income can be adopted

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. VARSHA VISWANATH PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2049/HYD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Ms. TH. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 153A

282 (Chennai Trib.) and Dr. Aman Khera Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax reported in 138 ITD 443 (Delhi), he submitted that since the assessee did not perform all the obligations as agreed to, the entire Page 25 of 46 M/s. Varsha Viswanath Properties Private Limited batch amount cannot be treated as income, but only estimated income can be adopted

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. VARSHA VISWANATH PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2050/HYD/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Ms. TH. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 153A

282 (Chennai Trib.) and Dr. Aman Khera Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax reported in 138 ITD 443 (Delhi), he submitted that since the assessee did not perform all the obligations as agreed to, the entire Page 25 of 46 M/s. Varsha Viswanath Properties Private Limited batch amount cannot be treated as income, but only estimated income can be adopted

VARSHA VISWANATH PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1906/HYD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Ms. TH. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 153A

282 (Chennai Trib.) and Dr. Aman Khera Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax reported in 138 ITD 443 (Delhi), he submitted that since the assessee did not perform all the obligations as agreed to, the entire Page 25 of 46 M/s. Varsha Viswanath Properties Private Limited batch amount cannot be treated as income, but only estimated income can be adopted

V.RAJASEKHAR ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(5), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1357/HYD/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsri V. Rajasekhar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad Ward-14(5), [Pan No. Aadpr0797E] Hyderabad Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Bhaskar Reddy, CIT-DR
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)(v)Section 263

housing and commercial project with 55:45 sharing ratio. So the assessee has neither expertise nor resources to carryon the construction on the land acquired by him. Then what prompted the assessee to convert the land into stock in Page 8 of 26 to trade, more so when he is not into construction business. This is nothing but a ploy

SHAILAJA KUNCHALA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-15(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 697/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Sept 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accounant Member Assessment Year: 2021-22 Shailaja Kunchala, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 15(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Cfkpk9703B. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri Kumar Pranav – Cit-Dr (Appeared Through Virtual Hearing) Date Of Hearing: 17.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.09.2024

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Pranav – CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 282Section 37(1)

section 282, particularly w.r.t. the businesses carried by Assessees in unorganised sector and thus a notice by registered post or a service through inspector ought to have been made before passing an Ex-parte order. 4. The Ld. Commissioner(Appeals)-NFAC erred in confirming the arbitrary addition of Rs. 16,41 ,58,541/- made by the Assessing Officer referable

ANAND BODDAPATY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 375/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA Kumar Pal TatedFor Respondent: Sri Narender Kumar Naik
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 263Section 45Section 54Section 54F

House bearing No.7-108/A-28, on Plot No.28 [In Part-A] situated at Manchirevula (v) under Narsingi Municipality, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District from his wife Smt. Radha Kumari Boddapaty who has purchased the property in question through Sale Deed No.400/2007 dated 05.11.2007. The assessee further submitted that, the Assessing Officer after verifying and examining all the evidences filed viz., agreement

NUZIVEEDU SWATHI COASTAL CONSORTIUM,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1339/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. U. Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

282/- and has allowed 15% depreciation on the said expenditure as applicable to plant and machinery. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) in its order dated 20.02.2019 confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer in the case of capitalising the expenditure incurred on construction of railway track

NUZIVEEDU SWATHI COASTAL CONSORTIUM,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1340/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. U. Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

282/- and has allowed 15% depreciation on the said expenditure as applicable to plant and machinery. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) in its order dated 20.02.2019 confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer in the case of capitalising the expenditure incurred on construction of railway track

NUZIVEEDU SWATHI COASTAL CONSORTIUM,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1338/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. U. Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

282/- and has allowed 15% depreciation on the said expenditure as applicable to plant and machinery. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) in its order dated 20.02.2019 confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer in the case of capitalising the expenditure incurred on construction of railway track

NUZIVEEDU SWATHI COASTAL CONSORTIUM,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1336/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. U. Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

282/- and has allowed 15% depreciation on the said expenditure as applicable to plant and machinery. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) in its order dated 20.02.2019 confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer in the case of capitalising the expenditure incurred on construction of railway track

NUZIVEEDU SWATHI COASTAL CONSORTIUM,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1337/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. U. Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

282/- and has allowed 15% depreciation on the said expenditure as applicable to plant and machinery. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) in its order dated 20.02.2019 confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer in the case of capitalising the expenditure incurred on construction of railway track

SATYANARAYANA REDDY MANNE,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1332/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA MV Prasad and Shri KS Rajendra KumarFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 263

property income, filed his return of Income for the 4 ITA.No.1332/Hyd./2024 assessment year 2018-19 originally on 31-08-2018 admitting therein net Income of Rs.115,89,66,700/- and the same was processed u/sec.143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short “the Act”]. A search and seizure operations u/sec.132 of Act were carried