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.

3 results for “house property”+ Rectification u/s 154clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai206Delhi173Bangalore82Chennai43Kolkata33Jaipur31Karnataka23Lucknow22Chandigarh21Hyderabad19Ahmedabad12Pune12Surat10Nagpur8Visakhapatnam7Indore7Rajkot6Panaji5Patna5Agra5Jodhpur4Cochin4Telangana3Cuttack3Allahabad2Raipur2SC1Orissa1Amritsar1

Key Topics

Section 74Section 13(1)(d)2

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX vs. M/S V.SATAYANARAYANA

The appeal is allowed

ITTA/193/2003HC Telangana21 Jun 2011

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

For Appellant: Mr. Debabrata Roy
Section 13(1)Section 13(1)(d)Section 7

house at 7 o'clock in the evening. The girl was unconscious during the day. PW 2 told her husband as to what had happened to their daughter. The police station was at a distance of 15 km. According to the testimony of PW 1 no mode of conveyance was available. The police was reported to the next day morning

Commissioner of Income Tax- IT and TP vs. M/s. Louis Berger International Inc.,

ITTA/108/2022HC Telangana
25 Sept 2023

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

154 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 114] relied upon by the respondent is another case where the transaction value was rejected. In that case, the importer had wrongly misdescribed the imported goods and sought to defraud the Revenue by attempting to surreptitiously import items prohibited under the import policy. It was found that there was justification, in the circumstances, for rejecting

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. M/s. Andhra Pradesh Mineral Development Corporation Ltd.

ITTA/94/2022HC Telangana24 Aug 2023

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

154 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 114] relied upon by the respondent is another case where the transaction value was rejected. In that case, the importer had wrongly misdescribed the imported goods and sought to defraud the Revenue by attempting to surreptitiously import items prohibited under the import policy. It was found that there was justification, in the circumstances, for rejecting