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.

200 results for “house property”+ Section 64clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,494Mumbai1,248Karnataka560Bangalore488Ahmedabad336Jaipur300Chennai285Hyderabad200Surat167Chandigarh155Kolkata155Pune153Cochin143Indore137Telangana84Raipur73Visakhapatnam61Calcutta58Rajkot43Cuttack42Lucknow35Nagpur30SC27Amritsar27Guwahati24Agra13Jodhpur12Patna11Varanasi10Rajasthan7Orissa3Jabalpur3Allahabad3H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1Dehradun1T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Andhra Pradesh1Kerala1Ranchi1

Key Topics

Addition to Income70Section 13253Section 143(3)46Search & Seizure35Section 153C33Section 80I30Section 6926Section 139(1)19House Property

SRIDHAR REDDY BAYAPU,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 841/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Us:

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54F

property was exempt under Section. 54 of the Act. For the sake of clarity, the observations of the Hon'ble High Court are culled out as under: “4. In the alternative, the assessee pleaded before the Income-tax Officer that he started the construction of another residential house at 64

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. SANJAY CHOWDARY GADDIPATI, HYDERABAD

ITA 376/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad

Showing 1–20 of 200 · Page 1 of 10

...
18
Section 54F17
Section 14817
Disallowance16
12 Jun 2025
AY 2022-23
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54FSection 54F(4)

property was\nexempt under Section. 54 of the Act. For the sake of clarity, the\nobservations of the Hon'ble High Court are culled out as under:\n“4. In the alternative, the assessee pleaded before the Income-\ntax Officer that he started the construction of another\nresidential house at 64

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD vs. NSL RENEWABLE POWER PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 166/HYD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Aliasgar RampurwalaFor Respondent: Shri P. Chandra Sekhar
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 80I

house property” of Rs.13,63,103/- and “Income from NSL Renewable Power Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. other sources” of Rs.18,53,35,645/-, and arrived at the gross total income of Rs.17,56,90,533 /- before applying provisions of Chapter VIA of the Act. 31. Further, the assessee has claimed deduction under Chapter VIA of the Act i.e., under section 80IA

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD vs. NSL RENEWABLE POWER PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 165/HYD/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Aliasgar RampurwalaFor Respondent: Shri P. Chandra Sekhar
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 80I

house property” of Rs.13,63,103/- and “Income from NSL Renewable Power Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. other sources” of Rs.18,53,35,645/-, and arrived at the gross total income of Rs.17,56,90,533 /- before applying provisions of Chapter VIA of the Act. 31. Further, the assessee has claimed deduction under Chapter VIA of the Act i.e., under section 80IA

K.RAHEJA IT PARK (HYDERABAD) PVT.LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 691/HYD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 May 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Laxmi Prasad Sahushri Assessment Year: 2011-12 K. Raheja It Park ` Dy. Commissioner Of (Hyderabad) Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 2(1), Hyderabad. Pan – Aacck 1914G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vijay Mehta & Ms. Aarthi Sathe Revenue By Shri Yvst Sai Date Of Hearing: 18/03/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/05/2021

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta &
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80I

House Property" in the impugned assessment years in the absence of complete details. Suffice to say that for analyzing the issue in respect of jurisdiction under section 263 by Ld, CIT, we are convinced that the orders of A.O. are not either erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. In A.Ys. 2006-07 and 2007-08, since the issues

ADIT(IT)-I,, HYDERABAD vs. M/S KAMINENI HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED,, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 1001/HYD/2013[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jun 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Kamineni Hospitals Income Tax-1, (International Pvt Ltd., Transaction), L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aaack 8356 J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri A. Srinivas Revenue By: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 31/01/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 25/06/2020

For Appellant: Sri A. SrinivasFor Respondent: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, CIT-DR
Section 191Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 54

64,418/-. 8. Before us, the Ld. DR made the following submissions: - (i) At the time of the purchase of the property, it was the obligation on the part of the assessee to verify the residential status of the vendors. Further, if the vendors are NRIs, then the provisions of section 195 of the Act will come into play

GRANDEUR HOMES PVT. LTD., SECUNDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 479/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmangrandeur Homes P Ltd Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Secunderabad Income Tax, Circle 2(2) Pan: Aaccg7612F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Shri K.J. Rao, DR
Section 143(3)Section 80I

64,73,118/- derived respectively from the Housing Projects Splendour (Gajularamamaram) and Emerald Heights (Ghanapur). The assessee was asked to produce the copy of the project lay out and completion certificates etc. In response to the same, the assessee furnished the approval letters and on perusal of the same, the AO observed that the housing project Emerald Heights was approved

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10(1), HYDERABAD vs. VERTEX PROJECTS LLP (FORMERLY M/S VERTEX PROJECTS LTD) , HYDERABAD

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

ITA 1187/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Acit,Circle-10(1) Vs. Vertex Projects Llp Room No.515, 5Th Floor, (Formerly M/S.Vertex A-Block, I.T.Towers, Projects Ltd.) A.C.Guards, #156-159, Paigah House Hyderabad. S.P.Road, Next To Pg College. Secunderabad-500 026. Pan : Aanfv0232C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sriram Seshadri, Ca Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar,Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.04.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Laliet Kumar, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Dated 16.03.2018 For The Ay 2014-15, On The Following Grounds :

For Appellant: Shri Sriram Seshadri, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar,CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 14A(3)Section 47Section 56Section 56(2)(viia)Section 56(2)(viiia)

section 147 / 148 of the Act, the coordinate Bench had held as under : “22. Coming back to our point we have to examine whether protective assessment/addition is possible under section 147 in respect of the same person and for the same period. When a regular assessment is made and later on it comes to the notice of the Assessing Officer

MANOHAR REDDY CHERUKU,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 1625/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad05 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1625/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri Manohar Reddy Vs. Dy.Cit Cheruku, Hyderabad Central Circle 1(3) Pan:Aelpc8785R Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri C Maheshwar Reddy, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Waseem Ur Rehman, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 02/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 05/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

For Appellant: Shri C Maheshwar Reddy, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Waseem UR Rehman, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 2(47)Section 2(47)(v)Section 45(1)Section 53A

house property. The assessee filed his return of income for the Page 2 of 8 ITA No 1625 of 2025 Manohar Reddy Cheruku assessment year 2016–17 on 31.03.2017 admitting a total income of Rs.5,98,860/-. A search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) was conducted on 09.08.2018 in the case

RADHIKA KURRA ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed in above terms

ITA 173/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2013-14 Radhika Kurra, Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Circle – 2(2), Pan – Aedpk 3506Q Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Pvss Prasad Revenue By: Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey Date Of Hearing: 29/04/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 20/07/2021

For Appellant: Shri PVSS PrasadFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey
Section 143(3)Section 54F

section 54F of the Act. 1.4 In this regard appellant would respectfully submit that, at the time of sale of the property, appellant was not in possession of more than one residential house as the villas handed over to appellant by Ambience Properties Limited are not in habitable condition and that they are semi-finished villas. This is evident from

HARISH BHATT NATARAJAN,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2050/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Sri K.C. Devdas, C.AFor Respondent: Sri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)

64 areas of plot of land at Mooledam, near Nattakam, Govt. Guest House, Kottayam is totally contrary to the fact and evidence on record and is therefore wholly unsustainable both on facts and in law. 2. The CIT(A) erred in upholding the sale price of 4.5 Crores as against 35 lakhs which was fully recorded in the sale document

SHANTHA NATARAJAN, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2046/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Sri K.C. Devdas, C.AFor Respondent: Sri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)

64 areas of plot of land at Mooledam, near Nattakam, Govt. Guest House, Kottayam is totally contrary to the fact and evidence on record and is therefore wholly unsustainable both on facts and in law. 2. The CIT(A) erred in upholding the sale price of 4.5 Crores as against 35 lakhs which was fully recorded in the sale document

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), HYDERABAD vs. BHUPATHI RAO VADDEPALLY , HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1826/HYD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2012-13 Asst. Commissioner Of Bhupathi Rao Income-Tax, Circle – 11(1), Vaddepally, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan-Aoipv 4558A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Asst. Commissioner Of Panduranga Rao Income-Tax, Circle – 11(1), Vaddepally, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan-Anppp 8702J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 54F

property should be of residential nature and the fact that the residential house consists of several independent units cannot be an impediment to grant relief u/s. 54F even if such independent units are on different floors. " 2. CIT vs Syed Ali Adil ( Decision of AP High Court dated 20.12.2012): In this case though the decision was rendered in the context

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), HYDERABAD vs. PANDURANGA RAO VADDEPALLY , HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 59/HYD/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2012-13 Asst. Commissioner Of Bhupathi Rao Income-Tax, Circle – 11(1), Vaddepally, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan-Aoipv 4558A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Asst. Commissioner Of Panduranga Rao Income-Tax, Circle – 11(1), Vaddepally, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan-Anppp 8702J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 54F

property should be of residential nature and the fact that the residential house consists of several independent units cannot be an impediment to grant relief u/s. 54F even if such independent units are on different floors. " 2. CIT vs Syed Ali Adil ( Decision of AP High Court dated 20.12.2012): In this case though the decision was rendered in the context

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

64,160/- Rs.26,51,600/- Rs.43,33,380/- 2016-17 Rs.16,81,780/- [i.e. Rs.14 lakhs + Income from house property reducing standard deduction at Rs.12,51,600/- ] Rs.14,91,600/- Rs.30,96,890/- 2017-18 Rs.16,05,290/- [i.e. Rs.2.40 lakhs + Income from house property reducing standard deduction at Rs.12,51,600/- ] 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee

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

64,160/- Rs.26,51,600/- Rs.43,33,380/- 2016-17 Rs.16,81,780/- [i.e. Rs.14 lakhs + Income from house property reducing standard deduction at Rs.12,51,600/- ] Rs.14,91,600/- Rs.30,96,890/- 2017-18 Rs.16,05,290/- [i.e. Rs.2.40 lakhs + Income from house property reducing standard deduction at Rs.12,51,600/- ] 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee

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

64,160/- Rs.26,51,600/- Rs.43,33,380/- 2016-17 Rs.16,81,780/- [i.e. Rs.14 lakhs + Income from house property reducing standard deduction at Rs.12,51,600/- ] Rs.14,91,600/- Rs.30,96,890/- 2017-18 Rs.16,05,290/- [i.e. Rs.2.40 lakhs + Income from house property reducing standard deduction at Rs.12,51,600/- ] 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee

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 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

64,160/- Rs.26,51,600/- Rs.43,33,380/- 2016-17 Rs.16,81,780/- [i.e. Rs.14 lakhs + Income from house property reducing standard deduction at Rs.12,51,600/- ] Rs.14,91,600/- Rs.30,96,890/- 2017-18 Rs.16,05,290/- [i.e. Rs.2.40 lakhs + Income from house property reducing standard deduction at Rs.12,51,600/- ] 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee

RAJENDER REDDY GUNNA ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal ITA

ITA 1849/HYD/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Aug 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

house property. Further, the assessee also could not be able to justify the amount received from his wife and mother. In absence of any evidence, the arguments of the assessee that, source for purchase of property, is out of amount received from HUF, mother and wife cannot be accepted. The Assessing Officer after considering the relevant facts, has rightly made

DHADUVAI PRAKASH RAO (HUF),HYDERABAD vs. ITO WARD-5(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 892/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.892/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri Mohd.Afzal, ARFor Respondent: Shri AVES Madhukar, DR
Section 54Section 54F

property on 08/11/2016 along with two brothers, received share of consideration of Rs.2,64,00,000/- and claimed exemption under section 54 of the Income tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”). However, it was observed that the asset transferred is not a residential house