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 10B(8)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi182Mumbai171Bangalore136Kolkata94Ahmedabad59Hyderabad52Chennai39Jaipur31Pune26Lucknow21Cuttack12Chandigarh9Indore8Varanasi7Surat6Agra4Telangana4Karnataka3Cochin2Jodhpur1Himachal Pradesh1Kerala1Rajkot1Patna1

Key Topics

Section 10(20)10Section 12A6Section 10(29)4Section 4(1)2Section 260A2Section 42Exemption2

Commissioner of Income Tax, Guntur. vs. Agricultural Market Committee, Kangiri.

ITTA/318/2008HC Telangana01 Mar 2011

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

For Respondent: Ms. K.Lalitha, Standing Counsel for
Section 10(20)Section 10(29)Section 12ASection 260ASection 4Section 4(1)

8] and Commissioner of Income Tax v Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti (2)[9]. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION The main point for consideration is whether AMCs constituted by the Government of Andhra Pradesh under Section 4 of the AMC Act are institutions established for advancement of the object of general public utility and, therefore, exist for charitable purpose. All other questions

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

ITTA/251/2008HC Telangana01 Mar 2011

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

For Respondent: Ms. K.Lalitha, Standing Counsel for
Section 10(20)Section 10(29)Section 12ASection 260ASection 4Section 4(1)

8] and Commissioner of Income Tax v Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti (2)[9]. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION The main point for consideration is whether AMCs constituted by the Government of Andhra Pradesh under Section 4 of the AMC Act are institutions established for advancement of the object of general public utility and, therefore, exist for charitable purpose. All other questions

DIR OF INCOME TAX [INTERNATIONAL TAXATION], HYDERABAD vs. NIMMAGADDA PRASAD, SECUNDERABAD

ITTA/536/2017HC Telangana10 Oct 2018

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

For Respondent: 1.SRINIVASA RAO KURAPATl
Section 22

Property is required for personal occupation of the Appellant/Petitioner? 3) Whether there are reasons to interfere with the orders passed by the learned Rent Controller-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Guntur in RCC.No.13/2008 Dt.26.07.2010? 11. The Rent Control Appellate Authority had considered issues 1 and 2 jointly and held both the issues against the petitioner. Issue No.3

The commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. M/s Lanco Kondapalli Power (P) Ltd

ITTA/121/2013HC Telangana26 Jul 2013

10b Mahendrakumar Mafatlal Shah, both of Mumbai Indian Inhabitants, having present address at A/1003 Gokul Vrindavan, Shantilal Modi X Road No.2, Kandivali (West), Mumbai 400 067. 11a Atul Shakaralal Shah 11b Alpa Atul Shah, both adults, of Mumbai, Indian Inhabitants, having present address at B/104 Shanti Apartment No.1, Mathuradas Ext Road, Kandivali (West), Mumbai 400 067. 12a Hemant Zaverilal Shah