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.

170 results for “house property”+ Section 13(3)(c)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai3,014Delhi2,826Bangalore1,041Karnataka683Jaipur595Chennai594Ahmedabad520Kolkata482Hyderabad358Pune312Chandigarh295Surat237Indore207Cochin198Telangana170Amritsar121Visakhapatnam112Rajkot95Raipur89Lucknow82SC66Nagpur66Cuttack62Calcutta61Agra30Patna29Jodhpur29Guwahati27Dehradun19Rajasthan17Varanasi15Kerala13Allahabad12Ranchi8Orissa8Panaji4A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN4Punjab & Haryana3Gauhati2Andhra Pradesh2J&K1Himachal Pradesh1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1ANIL R. DAVE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 1160Section 26022Addition to Income21Section 260A16Section 969Section 54F8Revision u/s 2638Section 1007Exemption7

The Commissioner of Income -Tax - III, vs. Shri Taher Ali

ITTA/322/2008HC Telangana04 Apr 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 108Section 13(1)(a)Section 13(1)(b)Section 13(1)(e)

House Rates Control Act, 1947 3 / 79 CRA-322-08gr (for short, 'Act'). The leaned trial Judge also accepted grounds under section 13(1)(e) (unlawful subletting by defendant no.1 in favour of defendant no.2) and 13(1)(k) (non user of the suit premises by defendant no.1-tenant). The Appellate Court decreed the suit only under section 13

M/s. Maruthi Movies vs. Income Tax Officer

ITTA/486/2011HC Telangana04 Jul 2012

This Court & Making The Same A Rule Of Court, Alongwith Decree Against Respondents Awarding Rs.5,35,920/- Paid By The Petitioner To The Arbitrator As Their Share Of Fees As Per Order Dated 21.12.2010. 2. Respondent No.1 Has Filed Its Objections To The Award Under Section 30 & 33 Of The Act In Form Of I.A. No.9067/2011. Respondent No.2 Has Also Filed Its Objections To The Award.

Showing 1–20 of 170 · Page 1 of 9

...
Deduction7
Section 1386
Section 271(1)(c)5
Bench:
Section 20Section 30

13 (3) It shall not be lawful for the tenant or any other person acting or purporting to act on behalf of the tenant or a sub- tenant to claim or receive any payment in consideration of the relinquishment, transfer or assignment of his tenancy or sub- tenancy, as the case may be, of any premises.” 34. In the present

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)

c). In all the three sub-sections the words used are “income derived from property held under trust wholly for charitable purposes”. Under Section 11(4) the expression “property held under trust” includes a business undertaking so held. In other words, income from business undertaking held for charitable purposes can fall under Section 11 subject to such income fulfilling

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)

c). In all the three sub-sections the words used are “income derived from property held under trust wholly for charitable purposes”. Under Section 11(4) the expression “property held under trust” includes a business undertaking so held. In other words, income from business undertaking held for charitable purposes can fall under Section 11 subject to such income fulfilling

ANDHRA BANK FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD, HYDERABAD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, HYDERABAD

ITTA/445/2005HC Telangana09 Jun 2023

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

Section 260

Section 13 confers overriding effect on the Special Court Act. It says that provisions of the Special Court Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act or in any decree or order

ANDHRA BANK FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I

ITTA/320/2006HC Telangana09 Jun 2023

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

Section 260

Section 13 confers overriding effect on the Special Court Act. It says that provisions of the Special Court Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act or in any decree or order

ANDHRA BANK FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD,. HYDERABAD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, HYDERABAD

ITTA/425/2005HC Telangana09 Jun 2023

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

Section 260

Section 13 confers overriding effect on the Special Court Act. It says that provisions of the Special Court Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act or in any decree or order

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, HYDERABAD vs. M/S GOLDEN STAR FACILITIES AND SERVICES PVT LTD., HYD

ITTA/335/2017HC Telangana26 Sept 2018

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

Section 13 which provides for Rule making power of the Central Government in respect of minerals. Section 13 subsection (1) WP(C). 11249/2010 & other contd cases. -:88:- and Section 13 Sub-section (2) in so far as relevant in the present case are as follows: “13. Power of Central Government to make Rules in respect of minerals.-- (1) The Central

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

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. M/s Pokarna Limited

The appeals are dismissed

ITTA/273/2012HC Telangana18 Feb 2025

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

Section 260A

13 sale was made at a price that was greater than the guidelines value of the property. Thus, the price at which the sale was effected is at a reasonable price. The property was never sold outside to a third party, but it was a sale to itself, to a sister concern which never parted with the property and therefore

The Commissioner of Income TAx-IV, vs. M/s. Mahaveer Enterprises (India) Limited

The Appeal is dismissed

ITTA/94/2008HC Telangana23 Mar 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 21

13 of 76 C/LPA/94/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2021 RAVJIBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL SINCE DECD. THR'HEIRS V/s ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY U.L.C. entitled to get the benefit of Section 3 of the Repeal Act. However, there will be no order as to costs.” 38.2 These significant contextual facts are missing in the case in our hands where Sections 10(3

The Commissioner of Income Tax - I vs. M/s. BBL Foods (Earlier Amber Biscuits P Ltd.)

ITTA/242/2012HC Telangana23 Mar 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

C' schedule property (item 6 and 7) is liable to be upheld. VII. 'H' schedule property (item 15 in O.P No.559 of 2006) in O.P No.775 of 2006 74. This property is extending 2.200 cents in Kaduppassery village in the joint name of Sri.Joy and Smt.Mini. The total consideration shown is Rs.5,500/-. It was purchased for laying pipelines

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

Appeals are allowed

ITTA/227/2011HC Telangana27 Jun 2011

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

properties or combinations, whether by hand labor or machine. (Tara Agencies[5]). The word 'manufacture' has been defined in Halsbury's Laws of England, (3rd Ed. Vol. 29 p.23) as a manner of adapting natural material by the hands of man or by man-made devices or machinery, and as the making of an article or material by physical labour

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II, vs. M/s Padmapriya Real Estates AND Financiers

In the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment passed by

ITTA/478/2006HC Telangana10 Mar 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 13(1)(e)Section 13(2)Section 313

c) of the PC Act. Someone has to prove the correctness of the entries made in such a list. 20. In order to sustain an offence, under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act, 188, three essential conditions are required to be satisfied. Firstly, the prosecution has the burden to prove that the value

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAJAHMUNDRY vs. M/s. Murala Venkateswara Rao AND others

Appeal is dismissed,

ITTA/190/2007HC Telangana22 Mar 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

For Appellant: 1.M.SRAVAN KUMAR, Spl. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR C.B.IFor Respondent: Sri K.Srinivasa Rao
Section 13Section 378(4)

13 (2) of the Act, 1988. The respondent/accused officer was working as Income Tax Officer, Ward-ll, Vizianagaram at the relevant point of time of the incident. There is no dispute that he was a public servant within the meaning of Section 2 (c) of the PC Act, 1988. 17. Ex.PIO is the order issued by P.W4, Commissioner of Income

Commissioner of Income Taxd vs. M/sA.,Venjkatarao AND Others

Inasmuch as all that is required is for the settler of the trust to declare that the

ITTA/309/2003HC Telangana21 Jun 2011

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

Section 11Section 260A

13 of 20 income under Section 11(1); secondly, there is a distinction between the objects of a trust and the powers given to the trustees to effectuate the purposes of the trust. The CIT (Appeals) also held for the assessment year 1992-93 that while the objects of the trust were certainly charitable, clauses 19 and 20 are mere

The Commissioner of Income Tax [Central] vs. Akula Nageswara Rao

In the result, R.C.R.Nos.405/2017, 406/2017, 407/2017, 408/2017,

ITTA/408/2017HC Telangana10 Jul 2017

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

For Respondent: ASHRAFUDEEN

C. RAJAN, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O RAHELAMMA, KOICKAL PUTHENVEEDU, KANNAMKODE, ADOOR PATHANAMTHITTA – 691 523 *5 P.C REMANI, AGED 60 YEARS, D/O RAHELAMMA, RESIDING KIZAVARAKAL, KARMAL HOUSE, THUMPAMON, PATHANAMTHITTA 689 502. *6 JACOB P.C. AGED 53 YEARS, S/O RAHELAMMA RESIDING AT KOICKAL PUTHENVEEDU, KANNAMKODE, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA -691 523 * ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS R2 TO R6 ARE BEING LEGAL HEIRS OF DECEASED SOLE RESPONDENT

The Commissioner of Income Tax III, vs. Sri Ravi Sanghi

The appeal is allowed

ITTA/168/2010HC Telangana23 Jun 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

For Respondent: - Mr. Smarajit Roychowdhury, Adv
Section 22Section 269USection 27Section 28

C' Bench, Kolkata. Vide order dated 04.10.2010, this Court framed the following substantial questions of law:- I. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and on a true and proper interpretation of the agreement, the income arising from sub-licensing of shops and establishment along with the various services which are rendered to the sub-licensed shopkeepers

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

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Nara Constructions,

ITTA/672/2017HC Telangana15 Nov 2017

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

Section 260ASection 271(1)(c)Section 28Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viii)

property and to contract and by that name, sue and be sued. The object with which the National Housing Bank (herein after referred to as NHB/ Bank for short] was established is to provide long term finance for construction and/or purchase of residential housing or residential township-cum-housing development or slum clearance projects. The entire capital