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.

244 results for “house property”+ Section 71clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,388Mumbai1,269Karnataka558Bangalore530Jaipur288Ahmedabad279Chennai261Hyderabad244Surat170Kolkata163Indore133Chandigarh122Pune117Cochin116Telangana65Raipur59Calcutta57Lucknow54Amritsar51Cuttack43Visakhapatnam37Nagpur31Agra27Rajkot22SC21Jodhpur14Guwahati9Patna8Rajasthan7Dehradun7Punjab & Haryana3Orissa3Varanasi3Ranchi3Jabalpur2Panaji2Allahabad2Andhra Pradesh1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1

Key Topics

Addition to Income77Section 13259Section 143(3)41Search & Seizure41House Property30Section 153A24Section 153C22Section 132(4)22Section 69

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. NARASIMHA REDDY DUTHALA, HYDERABAD

ITA 1113/HYD/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Respondent: MS. M. Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 54Section 54F

house property on or before the due date of filing the return of income provided under section 139(1) of the Act. Further, the Assessing Officer never disputed the fact of satisfying the conditions provided under section 54F of the Act. However, denied the exemption only on technical grounds of not satisfying certain venial breach of negative conditions, even though

RACHIT V SHAH,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-7(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 420/HYD/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad

Showing 1–20 of 244 · Page 1 of 13

...
21
Undisclosed Income21
Section 80I19
Disallowance19
15 Mar 2023
AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Adithya for Shri K.P.R.R.Murthy, Sr.AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 54F

section 54F of the I T Act. During the relevant period the assessee was not the owner of the residential property although he had full control over the property. Before the AO, the appellant has stated that his father is free to gift this property to any other person. Thus, I find that that the assessee has hypothetically attempted

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 15,49,369 property 3 Short Term Capital 10,44,14,475 Gains 4 Income from other 17,65,05,274 NSL Renewable Power Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. sources 5 Total income from (+) various heads other 28,24,69,118 than “Profits and gains of business or profession” 6. However, while computing the total income, the assessee claimed

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 15,49,369 property 3 Short Term Capital 10,44,14,475 Gains 4 Income from other 17,65,05,274 NSL Renewable Power Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. sources 5 Total income from (+) various heads other 28,24,69,118 than “Profits and gains of business or profession” 6. However, while computing the total income, the assessee claimed

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. KSK WIND POWER SANKONAHATTI ATHNI PRIVATE LIMIED, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are allowed

ITA 34/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ksk Wind Energy Ward-2(1), Halagali Benchi Private Hyderabad. Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaeck 1965 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri S. Rama Rao Revenue By: Sri Sunil Gowtham, Sr. Ar Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ksk Wind Power Ward-2(1), Sankonahatti Athni Hyderabad. Private Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaeck 1900 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri S. Rama Rao Revenue By: Sri Sunil Gowtham, Sr. Ar Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ksk Wind Power Ward-2(1), Aminabhavi Chikodi Hyderabad. Private Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaeck 1888 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Sri Sunil Gowtham, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 56

property, its guest house, charges for equipment and recoveries from the contractors on account of water and electricity supply. These items are covered by the decision in Bokaro Steel Ltd.s case (supra). To the extent that it relates to these items, i.e., items excluding interest, the question must be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. KSK WIND ENERGY HALAGALI BENCHI PRIVATE LIMIED , HYDERABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are allowed

ITA 33/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ksk Wind Energy Ward-2(1), Halagali Benchi Private Hyderabad. Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaeck 1965 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri S. Rama Rao Revenue By: Sri Sunil Gowtham, Sr. Ar Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ksk Wind Power Ward-2(1), Sankonahatti Athni Hyderabad. Private Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaeck 1900 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri S. Rama Rao Revenue By: Sri Sunil Gowtham, Sr. Ar Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ksk Wind Power Ward-2(1), Aminabhavi Chikodi Hyderabad. Private Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaeck 1888 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Sri Sunil Gowtham, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 56

property, its guest house, charges for equipment and recoveries from the contractors on account of water and electricity supply. These items are covered by the decision in Bokaro Steel Ltd.s case (supra). To the extent that it relates to these items, i.e., items excluding interest, the question must be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD vs. L & T METRO RAIL (HYDERABAD) LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 1412/HYD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Vs. L & T Metro Rail Circle-16(1), (Hyderabad) Limited, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aabcl 8521 D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ashik Shah Revenue By: Sri B. Sunil Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 25/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 21/01/2022 Order Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Am.:

For Appellant: Shri Ashik ShahFor Respondent: Sri B. Sunil Kumar, DR
Section 143(3)Section 56

property, its guest house, charges for equipment and recoveries from the contractors on account of water and electricity supply. These items are covered by the decision in Bokaro Steel Ltd.s case (supra). To the extent that it relates to these items, i.e., items excluding interest, the question must be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee

THE SECUNDERBAD CLUB ,HYDERABAD vs. ITO WARD -10(2), HYDERABAD

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 166/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri L.Jeevanlal, DR
Section 143(3)

section 71 of the Act providing for “Set Off of loss from one head against income from another”. We deem it appropriate to observe that the legislative expression “head” of income must be taken as any of the five heads of income provided u/s. 14 of the Act i.e. salary, income from house property

NITIN BHATIA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-12(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 1472/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1472/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shri Nitin Bhatia Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 12 (1) Pan:Akqpb1898R Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ca Y.V Bhanu Narayan Rao राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri S. Arun Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 24/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

For Appellant: CA Y.V Bhanu Narayan RaoFor Respondent: : Shri S. Arun Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54(1)Section 54(2)

71,960/-. During the relevant previous year, the assessee along with his spouse sold a jointly owned residential house property (“Original Residential House”) vide registered sale deed dated 14.12.2017 for a total consideration of Rs.3,70,00,000/-. The long-term capital gain on the said transfer was computed at Rs.1,33,83,234/-, out of which the assessee

IMPACT METALAS LIMITED, MEDAK DIST.,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 338/HYD/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Sept 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanm/S. Impact Metals Ltd Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Medak Tax, Circle 2(1) Pan: Aaaci4546A Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. AfzalFor Respondent: Smt. N. Swapna, DR
Section 143(1)Section 22Section 24Section 68

section 22 of the I.T. Act, the income received on the building and land appurtenant thereto, is to be treated as “income from house property”. Therefore, the AO treated it as income from house property and observing that only the expenditure mentioned u/s 24 is to be allowed, the AO observed that the interest portion of Rs.16

MANJEERA PROJECTS ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

ITA 956/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Sri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, DR
Section 143(3)Section 5Section 80I

71,170/- received from deposits of margin money in the banks". 3. In addition to the above, vide letter dated 16.03.2015, the assessee has raised the following additional grounds of appeal: "The order of the CIT (A)-VI, Hyderabad in giving a finding at Paragraph 4.15 of the order that the Appellant is not entitled to 80-IB deduction

MANJEERA PROJECTS ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

ITA 1554/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Sri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, DR
Section 143(3)Section 5Section 80I

71,170/- received from deposits of margin money in the banks". 3. In addition to the above, vide letter dated 16.03.2015, the assessee has raised the following additional grounds of appeal: "The order of the CIT (A)-VI, Hyderabad in giving a finding at Paragraph 4.15 of the order that the Appellant is not entitled to 80-IB deduction

MANJEERA PROJECTS ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

ITA 15/HYD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Sri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, DR
Section 143(3)Section 5Section 80I

71,170/- received from deposits of margin money in the banks". 3. In addition to the above, vide letter dated 16.03.2015, the assessee has raised the following additional grounds of appeal: "The order of the CIT (A)-VI, Hyderabad in giving a finding at Paragraph 4.15 of the order that the Appellant is not entitled to 80-IB deduction

P.C. PANTULU, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals for the AYs

ITA 277/HYD/2017[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Aug 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri B. Ramakotaiah

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 24(1)Section 24(2)Section 71Section 71(3)

71(2A) of the Act were applicable only from AY. 2005-06 and not before. In view of that, grounds on this issue are considered allowed. 6.2. Next issue for consideration is the claim of interest on house property. By stating that proviso to Section

P.C. PANTULU, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals for the AYs

ITA 275/HYD/2017[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Aug 2018AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri B. Ramakotaiah

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 24(1)Section 24(2)Section 71Section 71(3)

71(2A) of the Act were applicable only from AY. 2005-06 and not before. In view of that, grounds on this issue are considered allowed. 6.2. Next issue for consideration is the claim of interest on house property. By stating that proviso to Section

P.C. PANTULU, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals for the AYs

ITA 278/HYD/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Aug 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri B. Ramakotaiah

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 24(1)Section 24(2)Section 71Section 71(3)

71(2A) of the Act were applicable only from AY. 2005-06 and not before. In view of that, grounds on this issue are considered allowed. 6.2. Next issue for consideration is the claim of interest on house property. By stating that proviso to Section

S.M.QUTUBUDDIN,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(4), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 1842/HYD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Jun 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi(Through Video Conference)

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Smt. K.J. Divya
Section 143(3)Section 23Section 24

section 23 of the IT Act, 1961, the assessee should have adopted fair rental value and offered the same to tax. Therefore, with regard to a property at Tolichowki, he adopted the rental income earned by the assessee during the earlier FYs with 10% hike as the rental income for the relevant AY and accordingly, made the total addition

S.M.FASIUDDIN, REPRESENTED BY GPA MR.S.M.QUTUBUDDIN,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(4), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 1843/HYD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Jun 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi(Through Video Conference)

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Smt. K.J. Divya
Section 143(3)Section 23Section 24

section 23 of the IT Act, 1961, the assessee should have adopted fair rental value and offered the same to tax. Therefore, with regard to a property at Tolichowki, he adopted the rental income earned by the assessee during the earlier FYs with 10% hike as the rental income for the relevant AY and accordingly, made the total addition

MOHAMMED GHANI QURESHI,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY

ITA 448/HYD/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Smt. Momina AlamFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey
Section 148Section 54BSection 54F

71,00,000/- -do- Total 4,81,00,000/- 2.5 From the above it can be seen that out of sale consideration of Rs.9.20 crores, the assessee and family members have received Rs.8.20 crores and Smt. Jayasree and Sri Vishnu Vardhan together received Rs. 1 crore. In response to notice u/s.133(6) of the Act, Smt. Jayasree and Sri Vishnu

MOHAMMED ABBAS,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY

ITA 455/HYD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Smt. Momina AlamFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey
Section 148Section 54BSection 54F

71,00,000/- -do- Total 4,81,00,000/- 2.5 From the above it can be seen that out of sale consideration of Rs.9.20 crores, the assessee and family members have received Rs.8.20 crores and Smt. Jayasree and Sri Vishnu Vardhan together received Rs. 1 crore. In response to notice u/s.133(6) of the Act, Smt. Jayasree and Sri Vishnu