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.

10 results for “house property”+ Section 145(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai589Delhi508Karnataka476Jaipur181Bangalore144Ahmedabad133Chandigarh132Chennai82Cochin78Hyderabad75Kolkata64Telangana52Calcutta51Indore50Raipur45Rajkot31Lucknow30Pune28Agra24Surat22Allahabad18Amritsar14SC13Nagpur12Visakhapatnam10Rajasthan9Cuttack8Patna7Orissa3Jodhpur3Kerala2Ranchi2Guwahati2Varanasi2Andhra Pradesh1Panaji1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1Dehradun1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)23Section 14820Section 14710Section 689Section 142(1)6Depreciation6Section 54F5Section 325Reopening of Assessment

SMT. KANCHARLAPALLI HEMALATHA,,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE ITO,, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 322/VIZ/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam06 Nov 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.322/Viz/2016 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2010-2011) Smt.Kancharlapalli Hemalatha Vs. Income Tax Officer Flat No.102, Sri Kesava Heights Ward-2(3) D.No.59A-21/3-5/2 Vijayawada Vizayanagar Colony Vijayawada [Pan :Bcmpk6735M] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri D.L.Narasimha Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Suman Malik, DR
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 54F

2. Originally, the assessee has filed as many as 11 grounds of appeal along with Form No.36. Since the grounds of appeal are argumentative, the assessee filed revised and concise grounds on 10.09.2018. In the revised grounds of appeal, the assessee raised 4 grounds in total and all the grounds of appeal are related to the deduction

5
Addition to Income4
Section 143(2)3
House Property2

THE ACIT,, GUNTUR vs. SAI BHASKAR IRONS LIMITED,, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 108/VIZ/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam21 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अऩीऱ सं./I.T.A.No.108/Viz/2016 (ननधधारण वषा/Assessment Year:2012-13) Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S.Sai Bhaskar Circle-2(1), Guntur Irons Limited 3-1-3/A, 3Rd Lane Rajendra Nagar Guntur [Pan :Aamcs1675G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अऩीऱधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Deba K.Sonowala, Dr प्रत्यथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri I Kama Sastry, Ar सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 09.02.2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.02.2018

For Appellant: Shri Deba K.Sonowala, DRFor Respondent: Shri I Kama Sastry, AR
Section 14Section 68

house property, profits and 6 M/s Sai Bhaskar Iron Limited, Guntur gains of business or profession, or capital gains, nor is it income from 'other sources' because the provisions of sections 69, 69A,69B and 69C treat unexplained investments, unexplained money, bullion, etc., and unexplained expenditure as deemed income where the nature and source of investment, acquisition or expenditure

KANCHAN LALWANI,VIZIANAGARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 484/VIZ/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 56(2)(x)Section 68

house property, income from capital gains and income from other sources for the previous year relevant to the A.Y. 2021-22. In other words, the assessee does not have income from business or profession. If an assessee does not have income from business, the assessee does not require to maintain books of account for computation of income in terms

TIRUMALA SURYA KUMARI ,SRIKAKULAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SRIKAKULAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 215/VIZ/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.215/Viz/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Tirumala Surya Kumari, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Srikakulam. Ward-1, Pan: Aezpt7686L Srikakulam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11/06/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 08/08/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 68

house property, income from business being income from wines and partnership firm besides income from other sources. The assessee e-filed her return of income for the AY 2012-13 on 31/10/2013 declaring an income of Rs. 76,050/- and agricultural income of Rs. 1,17,040/-. The return was processed by the CPC and later the return was selected

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,, KAKINADA vs. EAST COAST IMPORTS & EXPORTS,, KAKINADA

In the result, appeal of the revenue as well as the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 79/VIZ/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam17 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K.Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.79/Viz/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2012-13) Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S East Coast Imports & Circle-1 Exports Kakinada D.No.67-15-32, Office No.1 Nagamallithota Junction Kakinada [Pan : Aacfe2078A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection No.49/Viz/2021 (Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.79/Viz/2021) M/S East Coast Imports & Exports Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax D.No.67-15-32, Office No.1 Circle-1 Nagamallithota Junction Kakinada Kakinada [Pan : Aacfe2078A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri V.Srinivasa Rao, Dr निर्धाऩरती की ओरसे / Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 08.09.2021 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.09.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench : This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)]-2, Visakhapatnam In Ita

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri V.Srinivasa Rao, DR

145/- under the head ‘loans & advances’ to the following persons : S.No. Debit 1. Aiswarya Infrastructure & Services 8401630 2. Andhra Prabha Publications 1001650 3. East Coast Gases 818620 4. Emgeek Logistics Pvt. Ltd. 28067360 . 5. Emmel Infra Properties Pvt. Ltd. 100000 6. Emmel Infrastructure & Services 207865502 7. Emmel Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 3492000 8. Hi Life Towers 680665 9. Vijay Associates

VIZAG SEAPORT P.LTD,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. CIT(A) 14, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2479/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri PJ Pardiwalla, CAFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32

145 (Bombay) and argued that the assessee is only a licensor and does not own the property and 6 hence depreciation cannot be allowed on the Berths constructed by the assessee. The Ld. DR supported the order of the Ld. AO. Per contra, at the outset, the Learned Authorized Representative [Ld. AR] invoked the provisions of Rule

DCIT 7(3), MUMBAI vs. VIZAG SEAPORT P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2402/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Aug 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri PJ Pardiwalla, CAFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32

145 (Bombay) and argued that the assessee is only a licensor and does not own the property and 6 hence depreciation cannot be allowed on the Berths constructed by the assessee. The Ld. DR supported the order of the Ld. AO. Per contra, at the outset, the Learned Authorized Representative [Ld. AR] invoked the provisions of Rule

DCIT 7(3), MUMBAI vs. VIZAG SEAPORT P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2401/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri PJ Pardiwalla, CAFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32

145 (Bombay) and argued that the assessee is only a licensor and does not own the property and 6 hence depreciation cannot be allowed on the Berths constructed by the assessee. The Ld. DR supported the order of the Ld. AO. Per contra, at the outset, the Learned Authorized Representative [Ld. AR] invoked the provisions of Rule

VIZAG SEAPORT P.LTD,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. CIT(A) 14, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2478/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Aug 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri PJ Pardiwalla, CAFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32

145 (Bombay) and argued that the assessee is only a licensor and does not own the property and 6 hence depreciation cannot be allowed on the Berths constructed by the assessee. The Ld. DR supported the order of the Ld. AO. Per contra, at the outset, the Learned Authorized Representative [Ld. AR] invoked the provisions of Rule

DCIT 7(3), MUMBAI vs. VIZAG SEAPORT P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2400/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri PJ Pardiwalla, CAFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32

145 (Bombay) and argued that the assessee is only a licensor and does not own the property and 6 hence depreciation cannot be allowed on the Berths constructed by the assessee. The Ld. DR supported the order of the Ld. AO. Per contra, at the outset, the Learned Authorized Representative [Ld. AR] invoked the provisions of Rule