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.

146 results for “house property”+ Section 17(5)(d)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai3,122Delhi2,426Bangalore1,130Chennai719Karnataka669Jaipur440Kolkata408Ahmedabad353Hyderabad307Surat212Chandigarh208Pune164Indore158Telangana146Cochin107Raipur80Rajkot75Visakhapatnam73Lucknow71SC69Nagpur66Calcutta59Amritsar56Cuttack56Patna35Guwahati25Agra21Jodhpur17Varanasi17Rajasthan12Allahabad12Dehradun8Orissa8Kerala8A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN4Ranchi4Punjab & Haryana2Jabalpur2Andhra Pradesh2Panaji2ARIJIT PASAYAT C.K. THAKKER1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1Gauhati1T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1J&K1Himachal Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 1168Addition to Income21Section 26018Section 260A11Section 968Section 1007Section 54F7Revision u/s 2637Section 1386

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

ITTA/108/2022HC Telangana25 Sept 2023

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

17. Proper officer can therefore reject the declared transactional value based on ―certain reasons‖ to doubt the truth or accuracy of the declared value in which event the proper officer is entitled to make assessment as per Rules 4 to 9 of the 2007 Rules. What is meant by the expression ―grounds for doubting the truth or accuracy

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

17. Proper officer can therefore reject the declared transactional value based on ―certain reasons‖ to doubt the truth or accuracy of the declared value in which event the proper officer is entitled to make assessment as per Rules 4 to 9 of the 2007 Rules. What is meant by the expression ―grounds for doubting the truth or accuracy

Showing 1–20 of 146 · Page 1 of 8

...
Section 271(1)(c)6
Exemption5
Capital Gains5

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. Shri Raaj Kumar Jain

ITTA/147/2013HC Telangana28 Jun 2013
For Appellant: - Sri Yug Mohit Chaudhary assistedFor Respondent: - A.G.A., Sri Amit Mishra, Sri Gyan
Section 156(3)Section 201Section 302Section 363Section 364Section 366Section 376

17 Surendra Pal Singh Sub-Inspector. Proved S27 panchnama of knife recovered at the accused’s instance and map of spot of recovery dated 11.01.2007. 18 Ajay Singh Inspector. Was authorized to bring the case properties from CFSl, Agra. Proved letter written to Director of Forensic Lab, Agra, letter written by the Director of CFSL, Agra, list of sealed properties

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

5. During the course of scrutiny proceedings, it was noticed that the assessee company had sold 82,152 sq. ft. of land in the Tech Park at Challaghatta on 24th - - 12 January 2005 to its sister concern M/s.MD Properties Pvt. Ltd., at Rs.389.52/- per sq. ft. Further, the assessee company has sold 14,516 sq. ft. of land

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

D G M E N T Sophy Thomas, J. PRELUDE “Brood parasitism” is a breeding strategy adopted by some birds, insects and fishes to raise their young. The most familiar example is a cuckoo laying eggs in a crow's nest to raise their young by befooling the crow. Homosapiens also seem to have started adopting that strategy to befool

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)

d) of article 243 of the Constitution; or (ii) Municipality as referred to in clause (e) of article 243P of the Constitution; or (iii) Municipal Committee and District Board, legally entitled to, or entrusted by the government with, the control or management of a Municipal or local fund, or (iv) Cantonment Board as defined in Section 3 of the Cantonments

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)

d) of article 243 of the Constitution; or (ii) Municipality as referred to in clause (e) of article 243P of the Constitution; or (iii) Municipal Committee and District Board, legally entitled to, or entrusted by the government with, the control or management of a Municipal or local fund, or (iv) Cantonment Board as defined in Section 3 of the Cantonments

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

ITTA/121/2013HC Telangana26 Jul 2013

House, Nhava Sheva. 5. Commissioner of Customs, Office of the Commissioner of Customs (NS-1), Jawaharlal Nehru Customs House, Nhava Sheva. …Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2091 OF 2022 Balkrishna Industries Ltd, Page 108 of 198 22nd March 2024 Saurer Textile Solutions Pvt Ltd v The State of Maharashtra & Ors & Connected Writ Petitions 1-2-oswp-1494-2023-J+.docx

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

5,60,065 sqft. from EIH under a leave and licence agreement dated 25.04.1972 for a period of 50 years on certain terms and conditions including certain facilities. As per Memorandum of Association of the appellant assesse, as reproduced in paragraph 2.6 8 of the order of the CIT appeal dated 07.01.2008; Clause III Part B (objects anciliary

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2 vs. M/s.Value Labs

ITTA/438/2018HC Telangana12 Sept 2018

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

Section 18Section 19Section 20Section 22Section 24Section 9

house and other landed property and is a Government Servant is earning sufficiently and opposite party no. 2 has rightly been directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant-opposite party no. 2 under Section 19 (f) of the D. V. Act. It is submitted that expense of -7- Rs. 30,000/- was incurred towards the medical expenses

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)

5 (2) of the PC Act, 1988 to grant tender of pardon to the Auditor. While the said petition was pending, the said Auditor/accused No.2 also filed Crl.M.P.No.14 of 2002 and the learned Special Judge allowed both petitions granting tender of pardon to the Auditor/accused No.2 and rounded off the name of Auditor/accused No.2 in the charge sheet

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 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

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

The Commissioner of Income Tax(Central) vs. M/s.Madhu Enterprises

ITTA/127/2025HC Telangana12 Feb 2025

Bench: The Learned

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 260ASection 54F

property bearing address D-6/5, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. According to the AO, the basement and second floor were required to be considered as two separate residential houses. 13. In terms of clause (i) to the proviso to Section 54F(1) of the act, the said section would not apply if the assessee owned more than one residential house

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri Chirla Rama Reddy, Contract

Appeal is dismissed with costs

ITTA/70/2007HC Telangana23 Mar 2016

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice N.K.Sudhindrarao R.S.A.No.70/2007

Section 100

house of 3rd defendant. Thus, the direct execution of the sale deed Ex.P1 is spoken by PW1 and PW6 but the legal formality of registration was not effected. 82. The features of valid contract as mentioned in Section 10 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 are offer and acceptance, legal relationship, contractual capacity, competency of the parties to enter into

M/s. Maruthi Movies vs. Income Tax Officer

ITTA/486/2011HC Telangana04 Jul 2012

Bench: 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.

Section 20Section 30

D-2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA 1. This suit/petition has been filed by the plaintiff/petitioner under Sections 14(2), 17 and 29 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the „Act‟) seeking a direction for the Arbitrator to file the Arbitral Record and the Arbitral Award dated 25.01.2011 before this Court and making the same

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

SMT. SHANTHA VIDYASAGAR ANNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2) HYDERABAD

In the result, the orders dated 09

ITTA/527/2006HC Telangana07 Jan 2025

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

Section 144Section 148Section 2Section 260Section 260ASection 53Section 54F

house propery. 5. The assessing offrcer by arr order d,ated 21.O2.2OO2 inter atia held that the clevelopment agreement dated 04.05.1,196 is a transfer within the meaning of Section 2$7) of the Act. The assessing officer firrther held that the assessee is not eetitled to benefit of Section 54F of the Act. The assessing officer, therefore, determined