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.

47 results for “house property”+ Section 69Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai321Delhi275Jaipur148Chandigarh67Bangalore62Hyderabad47Pune40Chennai29Amritsar23Ahmedabad22Indore21Guwahati16Agra14Kolkata14Jodhpur12Cochin8Surat6Raipur5Rajkot5Nagpur5Visakhapatnam4Lucknow4Cuttack4SC3Patna1Varanasi1Karnataka1

Key Topics

Section 153C54Addition to Income47Section 13245Search & Seizure45Section 139(1)42Section 6939Section 69B9Section 115B7Section 234A

SUPREME AGRO,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3 (1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of assessees are dismissed

ITA 121/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Jan 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Narahari BiswalFor Respondent: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy
Section 115BSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 68Section 69B

69C or section 69D, if such income is not covered under clause (a), the income-tax payable shall be the aggregate of— ii) the amount of income-tax with which the assessee would have been chargeable had his total income been reduced by the amount of income referred to in clause N.] (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this

Showing 1–20 of 47 · Page 1 of 3

6
Section 153A6
Business Income4
Unexplained Cash Credit4

KANISHKA GUPTA,,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of assessees are dismissed

ITA 119/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Jan 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Narahari BiswalFor Respondent: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy
Section 115BSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 68Section 69B

69C or section 69D, if such income is not covered under clause (a), the income-tax payable shall be the aggregate of— ii) the amount of income-tax with which the assessee would have been chargeable had his total income been reduced by the amount of income referred to in clause N.] (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this

RONAK GUPTA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of assessees are dismissed

ITA 120/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Jan 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Narahari BiswalFor Respondent: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy
Section 115BSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 68Section 69B

69C or section 69D, if such income is not covered under clause (a), the income-tax payable shall be the aggregate of— ii) the amount of income-tax with which the assessee would have been chargeable had his total income been reduced by the amount of income referred to in clause N.] (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this

SABITHA ANAND HOSPITAL,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 597/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S.Sabitha Anand Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hospital, Hyderabad Central Circle 3(3) Pan:Abwfs9326E Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Kumar Aditya, Dr Date Of Hearing: 02/03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 17/03/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 7.9.2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)-11, Hyderabad, Relating To A.Y.2017-18. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm Engaged In The Business Of Running A Hospital In The Name Of M/S. Sabitha Anand Hospitals. It Filed Its Original Return Of Income On 28.10.2017 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.10,70,540/-. A Survey U/S 133A Of The Act Was Conducted In The Case Of The Assessee On 27.9.2016. Consequent To The Survey Operation, The Assessee Filed A Revised Computation Of Income Of Page 1 Of 17

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR
Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(2)Section 69

house property. The assessee also argued that the assessee has utilized inferior quality of material which is not at par with the specification of the material as per govt. standard for which the DVO himself gave a deduction of 10%. Further, it was argued that the construction of the building started in financial year

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

house property at Sy.No.11/27, Khanamet Village, Serilingampally Mandal. and assessed the income of the assessee under section 69C r.w.s

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

house property at Sy.No.11/27, Khanamet Village, Serilingampally Mandal. and assessed the income of the assessee under section 69C r.w.s

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

house property at Sy.No.11/27, Khanamet Village, Serilingampally Mandal. and assessed the income of the assessee under section 69C r.w.s

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

house property at Sy.No.11/27, Khanamet Village, Serilingampally Mandal. and assessed the income of the assessee under section 69C r.w.s

GONUGUNTLA NIRMALA DEVI,ANANTAPUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, ANANTAPUR, ANANTAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 455/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Sr.AR
Section 143(3)Section 23Section 23(1)(a)Section 68

house property at Rs1,11,61,147/- and net income at Rs. 66,36,216/- as against the income shown at Rs.17,09,114/-. The AO has also added an amount of Rs. 54,54,000/- as unexplained investment under section 69C

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

69C were not sustainable. [2017] 83 Taxmann.com 161 CIT, Central —III, Mumbai Vs Lavanya Land (P)Ltd (Paper Book page. No. 58 to 70) Ground No.5: The A.O. used the admission of the director made u/s 132(4) of the Act in their case against the assessee, but failed to note that admission of other parties cannot be considered

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

69C were not sustainable. [2017] 83 Taxmann.com 161 CIT, Central —III, Mumbai Vs Lavanya Land (P)Ltd (Paper Book page. No. 58 to 70) Ground No.5: The A.O. used the admission of the director made u/s 132(4) of the Act in their case against the assessee, but failed to note that admission of other parties cannot be considered

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

69C were not sustainable. [2017] 83 Taxmann.com 161 CIT, Central —III, Mumbai Vs Lavanya Land (P)Ltd (Paper Book page. No. 58 to 70) Ground No.5: The A.O. used the admission of the director made u/s 132(4) of the Act in their case against the assessee, but failed to note that admission of other parties cannot be considered

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

69C were not sustainable. [2017] 83 Taxmann.com 161 CIT, Central —III, Mumbai Vs Lavanya Land (P)Ltd (Paper Book page. No. 58 to 70) Ground No.5: The A.O. used the admission of the director made u/s 132(4) of the Act in their case against the assessee, but failed to note that admission of other parties cannot be considered

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

69C were not sustainable. [2017] 83 Taxmann.com 161 CIT, Central —III, Mumbai Vs Lavanya Land (P)Ltd (Paper Book page. No. 58 to 70) Ground No.5: The A.O. used the admission of the director made u/s 132(4) of the Act in their case against the assessee, but failed to note that admission of other parties cannot be considered

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

69C were not sustainable. [2017] 83 Taxmann.com 161 CIT, Central —III, Mumbai Vs Lavanya Land (P)Ltd (Paper Book page. No. 58 to 70) Ground No.5: The A.O. used the admission of the director made u/s 132(4) of the Act in their case against the assessee, but failed to note that admission of other parties cannot be considered

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

69C were not sustainable. [2017] 83 Taxmann.com 161 CIT, Central —III, Mumbai Vs Lavanya Land (P)Ltd (Paper Book page. No. 58 to 70) Ground No.5: The A.O. used the admission of the director made u/s 132(4) of the Act in their case against the assessee, but failed to note that admission of other parties cannot be considered

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

69C were not sustainable. [2017] 83 Taxmann.com 161 CIT, Central —III, Mumbai Vs Lavanya Land (P)Ltd (Paper Book page. No. 58 to 70) Ground No.5: The A.O. used the admission of the director made u/s 132(4) of the Act in their case against the assessee, but failed to note that admission of other parties cannot be considered

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

69C were not sustainable. [2017] 83 Taxmann.com 161 CIT, Central —III, Mumbai Vs Lavanya Land (P)Ltd (Paper Book page. No. 58 to 70) Ground No.5: The A.O. used the admission of the director made u/s 132(4) of the Act in their case against the assessee, but failed to note that admission of other parties cannot be considered

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

69C were not sustainable. [2017] 83 Taxmann.com 161 CIT, Central —III, Mumbai Vs Lavanya Land (P)Ltd (Paper Book page. No. 58 to 70) Ground No.5: The A.O. used the admission of the director made u/s 132(4) of the Act in their case against the assessee, but failed to note that admission of other parties cannot be considered

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

69C were not sustainable. [2017] 83 Taxmann.com 161 CIT, Central —III, Mumbai Vs Lavanya Land (P)Ltd (Paper Book page. No. 58 to 70) Ground No.5: The A.O. used the admission of the director made u/s 132(4) of the Act in their case against the assessee, but failed to note that admission of other parties cannot be considered