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.

8 results for “house property”+ Section 482clear

Sorted by relevance

Karnataka323Delhi182Mumbai97Bangalore92Ahmedabad79Chandigarh55Kolkata32Jaipur27Chennai23Lucknow16Hyderabad13Indore8Telangana8Varanasi4SC4Surat2Rajkot2Pune2Rajasthan1Agra1Andhra Pradesh1Nagpur1Dehradun1Orissa1Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 10(20)10Section 12A6Section 10(29)4Section 4(1)2Section 260A2Section 42Section 62Section 4822Exemption2

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 and may by its corporate name sue and be sued. It is settled law that a body corporate is a person. We may refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner (Assessment-II) v M/s.Valliappa Textiles Limited[16]. In Valliappa Textiles Limited, the Managing Director of the said company was sought to be prosecuted under Sections

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 and may by its corporate name sue and be sued. It is settled law that a body corporate is a person. We may refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner (Assessment-II) v M/s.Valliappa Textiles Limited[16]. In Valliappa Textiles Limited, the Managing Director of the said company was sought to be prosecuted under Sections

The Director of Income Tax-(Exemptions), vs. Vasavi Academy of Education

ITTA/601/2016HC Telangana29 Nov 2016

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

Section 109Section 13Section 13(2)Section 401

section 482 of the Cr.P.C, as the case may be. In this case, the Investigating Officer has not come forward to say in clear terms that the petitioner had no independent source of income commensurate with the property and pecuniary resources found acquired in her name actually does not belong to her even though she is an income tax assessee

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s. Bheema Wines

ITTA/200/2010HC Telangana21 Mar 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 109Section 13Section 13(2)Section 161Section 482

482 Cr.P.C. challenges the order on charge as well as the Digitally signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:16.12.2020 13:19:29 Signature Not Verified W.P.(CRL) Nos. 200/2010 & 339/2010 Page 2 of 16 charges framed under Section 13(2) read with Section 13 (1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption

Chief Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri Talasila Srinivasa Rao

ITTA/303/2012HC Telangana09 Aug 2012

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

Section 5(1)(e)Section 5(2)Section 561Section 6

482 Cr.P.C.) for quashing of FIR bearing No. 14/2007 registered with Police Station, Vigilance Organization (now ACB) for commission of offences under sections 5(1)(e) read with section (5)2 of the Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act, Samvat, 2006 and also the Government order No. 30-GAD(Vig) of 2012 dated 10.09.2012 issued by the General Administration

Commissioner of Income Tax - II vs. M/s. TCI finance Limited

ITTA/301/2013HC Telangana17 Jul 2013
Section 173Section 482Section 6

house had fallen to the share of Tarsem Singh and his son Manjeet Singh. As per the family settlement, Jagjit Singh erected a boundary wall around the plot and also filled mud in the plot to raise its level by spending 3-4 lacs. After raising boundary wall and the gate at the entrance, a lock

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

HOUSING AND URBAN DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE 560001 BY ITS SECRETARY 2. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T CHOWDAIAH ROAD KUMARAPARK WEST BANGALORE 20 R/P BY ITS COMMISSIONER 117 3. THE ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T CHOWDAIAH ROAD KUMARAPARK WEST BANGALORE 20 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G.V. SHASHIKUMAR, AGA FOR R1) THIS W.P. IS FILED

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. L. SURYAKANTHAM, VISAKHAPATNAM

ITTA/280/2017HC Telangana08 Oct 2018

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

482. Non-discriminatory taxes do not constitute infraction of Art. 301 of the Constitution. With due respect, the view taken in Atiabari and approved in Automobile Transport that taxes do amount to restriction and that freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse cannot be subject to restriction in the form of taxes is not a correct view