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.

4 results for “house property”+ Section 80Gclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai167Delhi94Bangalore51Chennai40Kolkata31Pune26Lucknow21Ahmedabad13Jaipur12Surat5Hyderabad4Rajkot3Karnataka2Chandigarh2Cochin2Indore2SC2Punjab & Haryana1Jodhpur1Telangana1Dehradun1Nagpur1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)5Section 92C4Section 113Section 11(5)3Transfer Pricing3Addition to Income3Section 1442Natural Justice2Comparables/TP

NATCO PHARMA LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 853/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri A V Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 35Section 41Section 80Section 92CSection 92D(3)

80G of the Act in respect of donation of Rs.5,00,000 made to Inga Health Foundation, which was inadvertently missed out while filing return of income. 7. The Id. AO/DRP erred on facts and in law in making addition of Rs.6,14,336 under section 41(1) of the Act on the alleged ground that the Vendors have written

2

ADP PRIVATE LIMITED (31/10/2015),RANGA REDDY vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1( 1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 227/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri H. SrinivasuluFor Respondent: Shri YVST Sai
Section 143(3)Section 92C

80G of the Act amounting to INR 10,43,860 and further erred in not granting an opportunity of being heard to the Appellant, to present its case on merits, before denial of such deduction. 22. On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred by granting credit of tax deducted at source

ADP PRIVATE LIMITED,RANGA REDDY vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1( 1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 228/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri H. SrinivasuluFor Respondent: Shri YVST Sai
Section 143(3)Section 92C

80G of the Act amounting to INR 10,43,860 and further erred in not granting an opportunity of being heard to the Appellant, to present its case on merits, before denial of such deduction. 22. On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred by granting credit of tax deducted at source

SEW FOUNDATION,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD-1(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 499/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.499/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Sew Foundation Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad (Exemptions), Ward 1(4) Pan:Aaats7433H Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate V Siva Kumar राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Vinodh Kannan, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 13/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27/01/2025 Of The Learned Cit (A)/Addl/Jcit(A)-1 Coimbatore, For The A.Y.2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Cit (A)/Addl/Jcit(A)-5 Coimbatore, 27-01-2025 Is Erroneous, Contrary To Law & Facts Of The Case.

For Appellant: Advocate V Siva KumarFor Respondent: : Shri Vinodh Kannan, Sr. AR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 144Section 80G

80G were available in return of income. The learned CIT (A) further ought to have seen that Appellant’s accounts were audited by C.A whose details are furnished in the return of income. Hence, , denying exemption u/s 11 to the Appellant and restricting corpus donations of Rs.28,73,338/- by the Assessing Officer is not justified on the ground that