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.

220 results for “house property”+ Section 4clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai5,653Delhi4,564Bangalore1,688Chennai1,388Kolkata889Karnataka831Jaipur644Hyderabad599Ahmedabad598Pune464Chandigarh355Surat311Indore235Telangana220Cochin199Rajkot142Amritsar140Visakhapatnam136Nagpur116Raipur115Lucknow109SC83Calcutta75Cuttack72Patna71Agra67Jodhpur42Guwahati38Varanasi25Dehradun24Rajasthan24Kerala21Allahabad20Jabalpur19Panaji10Ranchi9Orissa9Punjab & Haryana5A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN4Himachal Pradesh2Gauhati2Andhra Pradesh2D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1J&K1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1ARIJIT PASAYAT C.K. THAKKER1ANIL R. DAVE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 1162Addition to Income24Section 26017Revision u/s 26313Section 1388Exemption8House Property8Section 2637Section 80I7

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

section 80-IA(4)(iii). 17. The Apex Court had an occasion to consider the question whether rental income from shops and stalls to constitute income from house property

The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central) vs. Madhu Enterprises

ITTA/455/2017HC Telangana06 Jul 2017

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

Section- 94(3) of the JVAT Act, to contend inter-alia that since the rules are required to be placed before the State Legislature, the same by itself necessarily implies that the Rule making power conferred upon the State Government enabled the State Government to frame rules with retrospective effect. 43. In our opinion, the said contention raised

Showing 1–20 of 220 · Page 1 of 11

...
Section 260A6
Section 271(1)(c)6
Section 1006

S.l. Shiva Raj vs. Commissioner of Income Tax,

ITTA/134/2016HC Telangana14 Jul 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section- 94(3) of the JVAT Act, to contend inter-alia that since the rules are required to be placed before the State Legislature, the same by itself necessarily implies that the Rule making power conferred upon the State Government enabled the State Government to frame rules with retrospective effect. 43. In our opinion, the said contention raised

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV vs. M/S NMDC LIMITED

In the result, this Appeal Suit is partly allowed by modifying the

ITTA/110/2015HC Telangana13 Dec 2021

Bench: The Madurai Bench Of Madras High Court Reserved On : 19.03.2024 Delivered On : 18.06.2024 Coram The Hon'Ble Mrs.Justice L.Victoria Gowri A.S.(Md)No.110 Of 2015 1.S.Govindasamy 2.S.Rajaraman 3.S.Kalaiselvan ... Appellants

For Respondent: Mr.H.Lakshmi Shankar
Section 96

section, it is clear that it cannot be said to be acquired at the expense of the patrimony of ancestral estate. Such property is, therefore, self- acquired in the technical sense of the term. As property described in cl (4), it is a question of fact as to whether it constitutes self- acquired property or not. In practice, the expression

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

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)

property held under trust wholly or partly for charitable or religious purposes shall not be included in the total income of the previous year of the person in receipt of the income. A market committee, constituted under Section 4 of the AMC Act, as mandated by Section 15 of the AMC Act read with Rule 27 of the Rules

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)

property held under trust wholly or partly for charitable or religious purposes shall not be included in the total income of the previous year of the person in receipt of the income. A market committee, constituted under Section 4 of the AMC Act, as mandated by Section 15 of the AMC Act read with Rule 27 of the Rules

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

houses are not really the objects, but were clauses stipulating the powers of the trustees. Having thus made a distinction between the objects and powers, the CIT (Appeals) proceeded to examine Section 11(4A) vis-à- vis Section 11(4) of the Act. He held that the amended provisions of Section 11(4A) would apply from the assessment year

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

Section 27(iiib) of the Income Tax Act, the income derived by the assesse from letting out shopping space is to be assessed under the head “income from house property” and not as “income from business”. 4

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

4 and odd cents was excluded. Though she would say that, there was a sale agreement for this property, she does not know its details. She is not able to say anything about the agreement for purchasing that property. The total consideration for that property was Rs.3,60,000/-. Though she deposed that she has got some documents to prove

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

Housing Society is the occupier of the property shown at serial No.5, hence the same cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of computing the holding; that though the properties at serial No.3 and 4 are built up properties the same are to be taken into consideration while computing the extent of vacant land held by the applicant

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

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

4 of the Specinl Cou rt Ar-.t should lrc orotected. 18.2. Further 'lribunaLl nored that insofar the assessee is concerned, the transactions were entered into prior to introduction of the Spccral Court Act. Assessee had purchased the bonds prior to the notifred date and had taken delivery thereof. It, thus, became property of the assessee ald could

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

4 of the Specinl Cou rt Ar-.t should lrc orotected. 18.2. Further 'lribunaLl nored that insofar the assessee is concerned, the transactions were entered into prior to introduction of the Spccral Court Act. Assessee had purchased the bonds prior to the notifred date and had taken delivery thereof. It, thus, became property of the assessee ald could

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

4 of the Specinl Cou rt Ar-.t should lrc orotected. 18.2. Further 'lribunaLl nored that insofar the assessee is concerned, the transactions were entered into prior to introduction of the Spccral Court Act. Assessee had purchased the bonds prior to the notifred date and had taken delivery thereof. It, thus, became property of the assessee ald could

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

4 to 9 of the 2007 Rules. 16.6. The proper officer can raise doubts as to the truth or accuracy Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:27.11.2024 18:20:25 Signature Not Verified CUSAA 26/2022 & connected matters Page 50 of 137 of the declared value on ―certain reasons‖ which could include the grounds specified in sub-clauses

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

4 to 9 of the 2007 Rules. 16.6. The proper officer can raise doubts as to the truth or accuracy Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:27.11.2024 18:20:25 Signature Not Verified CUSAA 26/2022 & connected matters Page 50 of 137 of the declared value on ―certain reasons‖ which could include the grounds specified in sub-clauses

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/s.V.S.T.Industries Ltd

Appeal is allowed

ITTA/268/2006HC Telangana19 Feb 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 96

4 CPC which provides that all necessary factual details of the cause of action must be clearly stated. Thus, if an HUF property exists because of its such creation by throwing of self-acquired property by a person in the common hotchpotch, consequently there is entitlement in coparceners etc to a share in such HUF property

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)

4) of section 80-IA; and (iii) an undertaking referred to in sub-section (10) of section 80- IB; (h) "long-term finance" means any loan or advance where the terms under which moneys are loaned or advanced provide for repayment along with interest thereof during a period of not less than five years;” As per the amended provisions

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