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.

14 results for “house property”+ Section 256(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Karnataka431Delhi394Mumbai368Jaipur97Bangalore92Chennai81Ahmedabad72Cochin70Kolkata35Hyderabad34Raipur25Lucknow23Nagpur19Calcutta18Chandigarh17Telangana14Indore14Surat13Pune13SC11Agra9Guwahati7Rajkot6Patna6Jodhpur3Amritsar3Cuttack3Rajasthan3Panaji1Jabalpur1Andhra Pradesh1Allahabad1Varanasi1Visakhapatnam1

Key Topics

Section 80P(2)(a)8Exemption6Section 260A4Section 464Business Income4Deduction4Section 3023Addition to Income3Section 272

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI METTAM PENCHALA NAIDU

ITTA/59/2010HC Telangana18 Sept 2018

Bench: This Court That The 1St Assessment Order Of The Ito Was Passed On 28.03.1988, Which Was Challenged Before The Leaned Cit (A) & The Same Was Dismissed On 28.11.1988. Against The Said Order, The Assessee Filed An Appeal Before The Itat, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack, Which Was Dismissed On 19.01.1990. Thereafter, By Order Dated 13.12.1990 Passed In A Misc. Application, The Order Dated 19.01.1990 Was Recalled & The Matter Was Heard Afresh. Again On 10.05.1991, Learned Tribunal Decided The Matter & Allowed The Exemption To The Assessee. The Revenue Filed Writ Petition Before This Court Challenging The Rectification Order Dated 13.12.1990. This Court On 02.12.1991 Allowed The Writ Petition & Quashed The Recalling Order Dated 13.12.1990 As Well As Its Substantive Order Dated

Section 254(2)

256(2) of the I.T. Act for opinion on the following three questions: “(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the assessee is not entitled to the exemption under s.11 of the Act? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal

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

ITTA/58/2010HC Telangana
Section 252
Section 254(2)2
Section 3642
21 Mar 2016

Bench: This Court That The 1St Assessment Order Of The Ito Was Passed On 28.03.1988, Which Was Challenged Before The Leaned Cit (A) & The Same Was Dismissed On 28.11.1988. Against The Said Order, The Assessee Filed An Appeal Before The Itat, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack, Which Was Dismissed On 19.01.1990. Thereafter, By Order Dated 13.12.1990 Passed In A Misc. Application, The Order Dated 19.01.1990 Was Recalled & The Matter Was Heard Afresh. Again On 10.05.1991, Learned Tribunal Decided The Matter & Allowed The Exemption To The Assessee. The Revenue Filed Writ Petition Before This Court Challenging The Rectification Order Dated 13.12.1990. This Court On 02.12.1991 Allowed The Writ Petition & Quashed The Recalling Order Dated 13.12.1990 As Well As Its Substantive Order Dated

Section 254(2)

256(2) of the I.T. Act for opinion on the following three questions: “(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the assessee is not entitled to the exemption under s.11 of the Act? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal

Commissioner of Income Tax -II vs. The Agrasen Coop. Urban Bank Ltd.,

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

ITTA/711/2006HC Telangana07 Jun 2011

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

Section 260ASection 46Section 80P(2)(a)

property and Rs.83,60,46,867/- as income from the business of banking. The assessee claimed deduction of business income under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act. The assessing officer, namely, the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax took up the return for scrutiny and found that the assessee had Rs.61,87,16,546/- as statutory reserve

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, HYDERABAD vs. M/s. The A.P.Vardhaman(Mahila)Cooperative Urban

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

ITTA/715/2006HC Telangana07 Jun 2011

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

Section 260ASection 46Section 80P(2)(a)

property and Rs.83,60,46,867/- as income from the business of banking. The assessee claimed deduction of business income under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act. The assessing officer, namely, the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax took up the return for scrutiny and found that the assessee had Rs.61,87,16,546/- as statutory reserve

Commissioner of Income Tax-II, vs. M/S The A.P.Mahesh Coop. Urban Bank Ltd,

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

ITTA/718/2006HC Telangana07 Jun 2011

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

Section 260ASection 46Section 80P(2)(a)

property and Rs.83,60,46,867/- as income from the business of banking. The assessee claimed deduction of business income under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act. The assessing officer, namely, the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax took up the return for scrutiny and found that the assessee had Rs.61,87,16,546/- as statutory reserve

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. The Andhra Bank Employees Co.Operative Bank Limited

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

ITTA/243/2007HC Telangana07 Jun 2011

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

Section 260ASection 46Section 80P(2)(a)

property and Rs.83,60,46,867/- as income from the business of banking. The assessee claimed deduction of business income under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act. The assessing officer, namely, the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax took up the return for scrutiny and found that the assessee had Rs.61,87,16,546/- as statutory reserve

The Pr. Commissioner of Income tax (Central), vs. Sri Vaishnavi Educational Society,

ITTA/622/2015HC Telangana01 Jun 2016

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar W.P. No.51929/2014 C/W W.P.Nos.42063/2012, 30494/2013, 42671/2013, 638/2014, 797/2014, 1089/2014, 3211/2014, 3389/2014, 6180/2014, 10356/2014, 12014/2014, 12015/2014, 13043/2014, 13045/2014, 13206/2014, 13207/2014, 13398/2014, 13774/2014, 14149/2014, 14161/2014, 14494/2014, 14502/2014, 14521/2014, 14689/2014, 16646/2014, 17051/2014, 17594/2014, 19729/2014, 21158/2014, 23897/2014, 28861/2014, 30731/2014, 31723/2014, 33774/2014, 33777/2014, 34084/2014, 34259/2014, 34272/2014, 34391/2014, 35204/2014, 35243/2014, 35247/2014, 35305/2014, 35609/2014, 36164/2014, 36166/2014, 36489/2014, 36525/2014, 36971/2014, 37446/2014, 38055/2014, 38463/2014, 38471/2014, 38472/2014, 38661/2014, 38753/2014, 39383/2014, 39633/2014, 39832/2014, 40204/2014, 40379/2014, 41394/2014, 41422/2014, 41427/2014, 41428/2014, 41858/2014, 43815/2014, 43963/2014, 44306/2014, 44527/2014, 44742/2014, 44835/2014, 45486/2014, 46766/2014, 47103/2014, 47105/2014, 47106/2014, 47107/2014, 47608/2014, 47731/2014, 47821/2014, 47860/2014, 47913/2014, 48577/2014, 48880/2014, 49567/2014, 50260/2014, 50533/2014, 51294/2014, 51930/2014, 51931/2014, 51932/2014, 52760/2014, 53854/2014, 54059/2014, 54083/2014, 54236/2014

1. STATE OF KARNTAKA REP BY ITS SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT M S BUILDING, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560001 2. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER KUMARA PARK WEST BANGALORE-560020 3. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KUMARA PARK WEST BANGALORE-560020 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G.V. SHASHIKUMAR, AGA FOR R1; SRI. M.N. RAMANJANEYA GOWDA, ADVOCATE

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. M/s. Nava Bharat Ferro Alloys Ltd.,

ITTA/392/2013HC Telangana05 Sept 2013
Section 14Section 14(1)(e)

1)(e) of RC.REV. 392/2013 & 394/2013 Page 8 of 46 the DRC Act. The averments in the written statement were denied and it was stated that if the petitioner/landlord has a proper residence at New Delhi his family which comprises of his wife and three married children and grand- children would also be happy to visit their motherland and would

M/s. Canara Securities Ltd vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax

ITTA/3/2020HC Telangana25 Aug 2020

Bench: M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO,T.AMARNATH GOUD

1 and 2 companies and certain other individuals as Directors of 4 listed companies, 3 subsidiaries of one listed company and an unlisted company is bad in law since the Joint APLs merely represents the estate of PDB and thus, had no rights to seek appointment of Directors in companies in which PDB was not a "Member". Further, without prejudice

The Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s Pitti Laminations Ltd.,

In the result, M.A.C.A.No

ITTA/95/2012HC Telangana27 Aug 2012

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

For Appellant: NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTDFor Respondent: NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD
Section 166

HOUSE, GANESAMANGALAM, VATANAPPILLY, THRISSUR DISTRICT, NOW RESIDING AT GARDEN APARTMENTS 21(OLD NO 10) PYCROFTS GARDEN ROAD, CHENNAI 600006 BY ADV SRI.P.V.CHANDRA MOHAN RESPONDENT/APPELLANT: NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., KOLLANNUR BUILDING, PALACE ROAD, THRISSUR BY ADV SRI.RAJAN P.KALIYATH THIS CROSS OBJECTION/CROSS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.10.2021, ALONG WITH MACA.821/2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. K. V. Srinivasa Rao

ITTA/480/2017HC Telangana01 Aug 2017
For Respondent: Mr. J.S. Guleria, Deputy
Section 120BSection 25Section 27Section 302

256], this Court was dealing with an appeal against the judgment of the High Court affirming the order of the Sessions Judge whereby the appellant and three other persons were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34IPC. While reappreciating the evidence on record, this Court noticed that in the cross-examination of PW 4 Sube Singh, a suggestion

The Commissioner of Income-tax-7, vs. Sri. M. Balanarasimha Reddy,

Appeals are dismissed but with no

ITTA/236/2015HC Telangana04 Nov 2015

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

House No. 59 Chajjubagh Road, West Gandhi Maidan, P.S. Kotwali, District - Patna. .... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance : (In LPA No.388 of 2015) For the Appellant/s : Mr. Vinod Kumar Kanth, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shri Nath Pathak, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, Adv. For the writ petitioner : Mr. J.S.Arora, Sr. Adv. Mr. Suraj Samdarshi, Adv. Patna High Court LPA No.388

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

Section 27 begins with a proviso and states that when any fact is deposed to as discovered, in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered may be proved, 49 whether it amounts to a confession

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. M/s Hyderabad House Pvt Ltd.,

ITTA/250/2013HC Telangana11 Jul 2013

property taken care of. Case ‘G’ : MAC Appeal No.175/2014 (In re: death of seventeen years‟ old child Hussain Haider) 15. The appeal presented by the insurance company which has been fastened with the liability to pay the compensation assails the judgment of the tribunal pronounced on 31.10.2013 whereby compensation in the sum of Rs.12,02,075/- was awarded in favour