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 161(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi543Karnataka464Mumbai347Jaipur148Chandigarh93Ahmedabad90Hyderabad87Bangalore86Cochin71Chennai61Pune51Kolkata44Telangana42Raipur39Indore38Lucknow22Calcutta18Patna17Visakhapatnam10Surat9Rajasthan9Nagpur8SC8Allahabad3Amritsar3Orissa2Guwahati2Andhra Pradesh2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Gauhati1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1Cuttack1Kerala1

Key Topics

Section 153A17Section 1327Section 143(3)7Section 685Addition to Income5Search & Seizure4Deduction3Section 1472Section 271(1)(c)

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ATR WAREHOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 102/VIZ/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam21 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

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

For Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

property, other sources and 19 agricultural income. The assessee has filed its return of income for the AY 2014-15 on 19/06/2015 declaring a total income of Rs. 8,96,720/- and an agricultural income of Rs. 5,14,000/-. A search and seizure operation U/s. 132 of the Act was conducted on 14/10/2015 in the case of the assessee

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ANUMOLU TIRUPATI RAYUDU(HUF),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

2
Penalty2
ITA 100/VIZ/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam21 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

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

For Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

property, other sources and 19 agricultural income. The assessee has filed its return of income for the AY 2014-15 on 19/06/2015 declaring a total income of Rs. 8,96,720/- and an agricultural income of Rs. 5,14,000/-. A search and seizure operation U/s. 132 of the Act was conducted on 14/10/2015 in the case of the assessee

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ATR WAREHOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 103/VIZ/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam21 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

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

For Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

property, other sources and 19 agricultural income. The assessee has filed its return of income for the AY 2014-15 on 19/06/2015 declaring a total income of Rs. 8,96,720/- and an agricultural income of Rs. 5,14,000/-. A search and seizure operation U/s. 132 of the Act was conducted on 14/10/2015 in the case of the assessee

ITO, WARD-3(3),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SIRIPURAPU CHINATALLI,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 375/VIZ/2017[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 Feb 2019AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.375/Viz/2017 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2008-09) Income Tax Officer Vs. Smt.Siripurapu Chinatalli Ward-3(3) D.No.9-16-37/2 Visakhapatnam Gurajada Enclave Cbm Compound Visakhapatnam [Pan : Agrpc1150E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.457/Viz/2017 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2008-09) Income Tax Officer Vs. Shri K.V.V.Prasad Ward-3(3) Plot No.301, Vytla Residency Visakhapatnam Balajinagar Siripuram Visakhapatnam (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr प्रत्यधथी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 24.01.2019 : 13.02.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri G.V.N.Hari, AR
Section 271(1)(c)

Housing and Land Development trust Ltd(1986) 161 ITR 524 and the decision of CIT vs Jai Prakash Om Prakash Co.Ltd(1961) 41 ITR718(Punj). The assessee contended that the amount received from M/s Fortuna Infrastructure India Private Limited has to be treated as advance in the impugned assessment year and cannot be treated as income pending settlement of dispute

ITO, WARD-3(3),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SHRI K V V PRASAD,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 457/VIZ/2017[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 Feb 2019AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.375/Viz/2017 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2008-09) Income Tax Officer Vs. Smt.Siripurapu Chinatalli Ward-3(3) D.No.9-16-37/2 Visakhapatnam Gurajada Enclave Cbm Compound Visakhapatnam [Pan : Agrpc1150E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.457/Viz/2017 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2008-09) Income Tax Officer Vs. Shri K.V.V.Prasad Ward-3(3) Plot No.301, Vytla Residency Visakhapatnam Balajinagar Siripuram Visakhapatnam (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr प्रत्यधथी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 24.01.2019 : 13.02.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri G.V.N.Hari, AR
Section 271(1)(c)

Housing and Land Development trust Ltd(1986) 161 ITR 524 and the decision of CIT vs Jai Prakash Om Prakash Co.Ltd(1961) 41 ITR718(Punj). The assessee contended that the amount received from M/s Fortuna Infrastructure India Private Limited has to be treated as advance in the impugned assessment year and cannot be treated as income pending settlement of dispute

KOTU ANASUYA (LATE),VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DCIT, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 494/VIZ/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: ShriG.V.N. Hari–AdvocateFor Respondent: ShriD.K. Sonawal–Sr.DR
Section 132Section 153A

Housing Development Ltd. (supra) and Relaxo Footwear Ltd. V. Addl. CIT (supra), to the extent that they are inconsistent with what has been held hereinbefore do not merit acceptance. Further, the mere fact that in the audit report for the AY in question, the auditors may have suggested that there should be a disallowance cannot be determinative of the legal

KOTU SARAT KUMAR,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DY.CIT., VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 493/VIZ/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: ShriG.V.N. Hari–AdvocateFor Respondent: ShriD.K. Sonawal–Sr.DR
Section 132Section 153A

Housing Development Ltd. (supra) and Relaxo Footwear Ltd. V. Addl. CIT (supra), to the extent that they are inconsistent with what has been held hereinbefore do not merit acceptance. Further, the mere fact that in the audit report for the AY in question, the auditors may have suggested that there should be a disallowance cannot be determinative of the legal

DY CIT, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. KOTU SARATH KUMAR`, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 496/VIZ/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: ShriG.V.N. Hari–AdvocateFor Respondent: ShriD.K. Sonawal–Sr.DR
Section 132Section 153A

Housing Development Ltd. (supra) and Relaxo Footwear Ltd. V. Addl. CIT (supra), to the extent that they are inconsistent with what has been held hereinbefore do not merit acceptance. Further, the mere fact that in the audit report for the AY in question, the auditors may have suggested that there should be a disallowance cannot be determinative of the legal

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ANUMOLU AVNASH, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 101/VIZ/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam21 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Sri G.V.N. Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

property, other sources and agricultural income. The assessee has filed its return of income for the AY 2013-14 on 24/12/2013 declaring a total income of Rs. 39,00,000/- and an agricultural income of Rs. 1,04,522/-. A search and seizure operation U/s. 132 of the Act was conducted on 14/10/2015 in the case of the assessee

KODALI SURESH BABU,LABBIPET vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 231/VIZ/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T. (It). A. No.231/Viz/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2016-17) Kodali Suresh Babu, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Labbipet. Ward (International Taxation), Pan: Atwpk 8835 C Vijayawada. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थीकीओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar प्रत्यधर्थीकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुिवधईकीतधरीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26/03/2024 घोर्णधकीतधरीख/Date Of : 18/04/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per S. Balakrishnan:

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69

property. Any other grounds may be urged at the time of hearing.” 5. 4. Grounds No. 1 & 5 are general in nature and therefore they need no adjudication. 5. Ground No.2 relates to the validity of issuance of notice U/s. 148 of the Act where the assessment proceedings ought to have been initiated U/s. 153C of the Act. On this