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.

175 results for “house property”+ Section 79clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,259Mumbai1,077Karnataka556Bangalore455Ahmedabad287Jaipur242Chennai235Hyderabad175Kolkata169Surat161Cochin124Indore113Chandigarh106Pune101Telangana69Visakhapatnam62Raipur55Calcutta53Cuttack43Lucknow42Rajkot39Agra31Guwahati27Nagpur22SC19Jodhpur18Amritsar17Varanasi10Rajasthan8Dehradun7Allahabad3Orissa3Patna3Ranchi2Jabalpur2ARIJIT PASAYAT C.K. THAKKER1Andhra Pradesh1Punjab & Haryana1Kerala1

Key Topics

Addition to Income80Section 143(3)66Section 13249Section 50C35Section 153A33Search & Seizure29Disallowance29Section 153C24Section 69

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD vs. CACHE PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 124/HYD/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Respondent: Sri Rohit Mujumdar, D.R
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 263

Section 28 cannot be invoked and the income received cannot be treated as profits of business. He also placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Raj Dadarkar & Associates Vs. ACIT [394 ITR 592] (SC), wherein it was held that – The assessee acquired leasehold rights in a property, constructed various shops and stalls

Showing 1–20 of 175 · Page 1 of 9

...
22
Deduction22
Section 139(1)20
Section 14818

CACHE PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 571/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 May 2019AY 2014-15

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

For Respondent: Smt. Neeju Gupta, DR
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 24

Section 28 cannot be invoked and the income received cannot be treated as profits of business. He also placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Raj Dadarkar & Associates Vs. ACIT [394 ITR 592] (SC), wherein it was held that – The assessee acquired leasehold rights in a property, constructed various shops and stalls

TARA CHAND BOPPANA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 646/HYD/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali MohanFor Respondent: Ms. TH Vijaya Lakshmi
Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 50C

79,750/ - u/s 50C of the Act. 4.a) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in partly allowing ground nos. 5 to 5.6 taken before him with regard to the addition of Rs.10,93,750/- b) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the Ao to independently verify from banking sources to ascertain whether the initial payment was actually received

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. JHANSI RANI BOPPANA, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 694/HYD/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali MohanFor Respondent: Ms. TH Vijaya Lakshmi
Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 50C

79,750/ - u/s 50C of the Act. 4.a) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in partly allowing ground nos. 5 to 5.6 taken before him with regard to the addition of Rs.10,93,750/- b) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the Ao to independently verify from banking sources to ascertain whether the initial payment was actually received

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. KAVYA BOPPANA, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 696/HYD/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali MohanFor Respondent: Ms. TH Vijaya Lakshmi
Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 50C

79,750/ - u/s 50C of the Act. 4.a) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in partly allowing ground nos. 5 to 5.6 taken before him with regard to the addition of Rs.10,93,750/- b) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the Ao to independently verify from banking sources to ascertain whether the initial payment was actually received

KAVYA BOPPANA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 642/HYD/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali MohanFor Respondent: Ms. TH Vijaya Lakshmi
Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 50C

79,750/ - u/s 50C of the Act. 4.a) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in partly allowing ground nos. 5 to 5.6 taken before him with regard to the addition of Rs.10,93,750/- b) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the Ao to independently verify from banking sources to ascertain whether the initial payment was actually received

SARAT GOPAL BOPPANA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 638/HYD/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali MohanFor Respondent: Ms. TH Vijaya Lakshmi
Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 50C

79,750/ - u/s 50C of the Act. 4.a) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in partly allowing ground nos. 5 to 5.6 taken before him with regard to the addition of Rs.10,93,750/- b) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the Ao to independently verify from banking sources to ascertain whether the initial payment was actually received

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. TARA CHAND BOPPANA, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 692/HYD/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali MohanFor Respondent: Ms. TH Vijaya Lakshmi
Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 50C

79,750/ - u/s 50C of the Act. 4.a) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in partly allowing ground nos. 5 to 5.6 taken before him with regard to the addition of Rs.10,93,750/- b) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the Ao to independently verify from banking sources to ascertain whether the initial payment was actually received

SARAT GOPAL BOPPANA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3),, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 637/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali MohanFor Respondent: Ms. TH Vijaya Lakshmi
Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 50C

79,750/ - u/s 50C of the Act. 4.a) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in partly allowing ground nos. 5 to 5.6 taken before him with regard to the addition of Rs.10,93,750/- b) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the Ao to independently verify from banking sources to ascertain whether the initial payment was actually received

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. SARAT GOPAL BOPPANA, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 690/HYD/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali MohanFor Respondent: Ms. TH Vijaya Lakshmi
Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 50C

79,750/ - u/s 50C of the Act. 4.a) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in partly allowing ground nos. 5 to 5.6 taken before him with regard to the addition of Rs.10,93,750/- b) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the Ao to independently verify from banking sources to ascertain whether the initial payment was actually received

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

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

ITA 451/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

house. Even with regard to the alleged buying of land, the appellant claimed it at Rs.37.50 lakhs as per the AFS dated 30.04.2008 where as it is only for Rs.6 lakhs as per the Sale Deed. The appellant did not produce the said AFS dated 14.02.2008, though he claimed Rs. 37.50 lakhs as the purchase consideration. It Is not hard

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

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

ITA 450/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

house. Even with regard to the alleged buying of land, the appellant claimed it at Rs.37.50 lakhs as per the AFS dated 30.04.2008 where as it is only for Rs.6 lakhs as per the Sale Deed. The appellant did not produce the said AFS dated 14.02.2008, though he claimed Rs. 37.50 lakhs as the purchase consideration. It Is not hard

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

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

ITA 453/HYD/2018[2009/10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Mar 2019

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

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

house. Even with regard to the alleged buying of land, the appellant claimed it at Rs.37.50 lakhs as per the AFS dated 30.04.2008 where as it is only for Rs.6 lakhs as per the Sale Deed. The appellant did not produce the said AFS dated 14.02.2008, though he claimed Rs. 37.50 lakhs as the purchase consideration. It Is not hard

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

house. Even with regard to the alleged buying of land, the appellant claimed it at Rs.37.50 lakhs as per the AFS dated 30.04.2008 where as it is only for Rs.6 lakhs as per the Sale Deed. The appellant did not produce the said AFS dated 14.02.2008, though he claimed Rs. 37.50 lakhs as the purchase consideration. It Is not hard

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

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

ITA 449/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

house. Even with regard to the alleged buying of land, the appellant claimed it at Rs.37.50 lakhs as per the AFS dated 30.04.2008 where as it is only for Rs.6 lakhs as per the Sale Deed. The appellant did not produce the said AFS dated 14.02.2008, though he claimed Rs. 37.50 lakhs as the purchase consideration. It Is not hard

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

house. Even with regard to the alleged buying of land, the appellant claimed it at Rs.37.50 lakhs as per the AFS dated 30.04.2008 where as it is only for Rs.6 lakhs as per the Sale Deed. The appellant did not produce the said AFS dated 14.02.2008, though he claimed Rs. 37.50 lakhs as the purchase consideration. It Is not hard

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

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

ITA 452/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

house. Even with regard to the alleged buying of land, the appellant claimed it at Rs.37.50 lakhs as per the AFS dated 30.04.2008 where as it is only for Rs.6 lakhs as per the Sale Deed. The appellant did not produce the said AFS dated 14.02.2008, though he claimed Rs. 37.50 lakhs as the purchase consideration. It Is not hard

MOHAMMED ABBAS,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-15(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 454/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

house. Even with regard to the alleged buying of land, the appellant claimed it at Rs.37.50 lakhs as per the AFS dated 30.04.2008 where as it is only for Rs.6 lakhs as per the Sale Deed. The appellant did not produce the said AFS dated 14.02.2008, though he claimed Rs. 37.50 lakhs as the purchase consideration. It Is not hard

MOHMOODA BEGUM,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 456/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

house. Even with regard to the alleged buying of land, the appellant claimed it at Rs.37.50 lakhs as per the AFS dated 30.04.2008 where as it is only for Rs.6 lakhs as per the Sale Deed. The appellant did not produce the said AFS dated 14.02.2008, though he claimed Rs. 37.50 lakhs as the purchase consideration. It Is not hard

MOHMOODA BEGUM,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 457/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

house. Even with regard to the alleged buying of land, the appellant claimed it at Rs.37.50 lakhs as per the AFS dated 30.04.2008 where as it is only for Rs.6 lakhs as per the Sale Deed. The appellant did not produce the said AFS dated 14.02.2008, though he claimed Rs. 37.50 lakhs as the purchase consideration. It Is not hard