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.

18 results for “house property”+ Section 233clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi523Karnataka443Mumbai236Bangalore126Cochin71Chennai55Ahmedabad52Jaipur45Raipur32Kolkata30Indore26Lucknow19Visakhapatnam18Hyderabad17Pune17Calcutta17Surat13Amritsar7Chandigarh7Nagpur7Patna7Rajkot7Telangana6Guwahati5Rajasthan5Jabalpur4Jodhpur3SC3Varanasi1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)39Section 153A24Section 14821Section 14710Addition to Income9Section 1328Unexplained Cash Credit8Disallowance8Undisclosed Income

KALVA UMADEVI ,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4), , VISAKHPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 443/VIZ/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam12 Dec 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.443/Viz/2018 (धििाारण िर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2009-2010) Smt.Kalva Uma Devi Income Tax Officer 15-2-17, Srinilayam Ward-1(4) Maharanipeta Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aewpk3080J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri C.V.S.Murthy, Ar प्रत्यार्थी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Smt. Suman Malik, Dr

For Appellant: Shri C.V.S.Murthy, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik, DR
Section 1Section 148Section 50CSection 54Section 54F

house property, then 6 I.T.A. No.443/Viz/2018 Smt.Kalva Uma Devi, Visakhapatnam he is eligible for exemption u/s 54 of the Act, even though the full value of consideration is more than the net sale consideration as a result of transfer. Deeming fiction as provided u/s 50C of the Act in respect of the words full value of consideration

8
Section 54F6
Section 50C5
Section 10A5

ACN INFOTECH INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,VISAKHAPATANAM vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), VISAKHAPATANAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 94/VIZ/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam01 Dec 2022AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.94/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Acn Infotech India Private Limited Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of 3A, Balajis Mangalagiri Chambers Income Tax Siripuram Circle-1(1) Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aafca7810A]

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.N.Murthy Naik, CIT(DR)
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 1ASection 23Section 263

house property. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) on 28.11.2019, accepting the income returned by the assessee. Under the powers vested with the Ld.PCIT, as per the provisions of section 263 of the Act, the assessment records were called for and examined. The Ld.PCIT observed that the assessee company claimed

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1),, GUNTUR vs. DANDU BRAHMANANDAM, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals of the revenue in I

ITA 11/VIZ/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.11/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2014-15) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. Sri Danda Brahmanandam Income Tax 13Aj Block, 5Th Street Circle-2(1) Santhi Colony Guntur Annanagar, Chennai [Pan : Aespd2628B]

For Appellant: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT DR
Section 2(24)(iv)

section 2(24) (iv) in the case of the assessee. 8. The next contention raised by the Ld.AR during the appeal hearing is that the success fee paid by the company was already recovered from the net consideration paid to the shareholders, hence, there is no case for making separate addition. The Ld.AR invited out attention to page

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1),, GUNTUR vs. BATTINI NAGESWARA RAO, NARASARAOPET

In the result, appeals of the revenue in I

ITA 12/VIZ/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.11/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2014-15) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. Sri Danda Brahmanandam Income Tax 13Aj Block, 5Th Street Circle-2(1) Santhi Colony Guntur Annanagar, Chennai [Pan : Aespd2628B]

For Appellant: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT DR
Section 2(24)(iv)

section 2(24) (iv) in the case of the assessee. 8. The next contention raised by the Ld.AR during the appeal hearing is that the success fee paid by the company was already recovered from the net consideration paid to the shareholders, hence, there is no case for making separate addition. The Ld.AR invited out attention to page

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. M/S. A.S.RAJA SONS ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue and the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 667/VIZ/2019[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Nov 2019AY 2015-2016

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

For Appellant: Shri Suseel Kumar Agarwal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Sonawal, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 23(1)(a)

house property of the assessee. In response to that, the assessee has explained as under:- “....your selves have observed that the present rate per square feet of the property given to Care Hospital situated at Waltair, Main Road, Ramnagar, Visakhapatnam, owned by the assessee was more per sft and wanted to apply these rates as against the actual rate

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

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 27 of the ITAT Rules, 1963 and argued that reopening of the assessment itself

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

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 27 of the ITAT Rules, 1963 and argued that reopening of the assessment itself

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

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 27 of the ITAT Rules, 1963 and argued that reopening of the assessment itself

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

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 27 of the ITAT Rules, 1963 and argued that reopening of the assessment itself

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

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 27 of the ITAT Rules, 1963 and argued that reopening of the assessment itself

ARUNACHALAM MANICKAVEL,PROP: BHARATHI SOAP WORKS, 1ST LANE,,GUNTUR vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1),, GUNTUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

ITA 174/VIZ/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

233 2005-06 16,30,835 2006-07 26,69,408 2007-08 41,53,703 2008-09 2,04,25,430 6.1. The Ld.AR argued that in the above assessments for the A.Y.2004-05 to 2008-09, the additions were made either from the information already available in the assessment record or by assumptions and presumptions. The Ld.AR further argued

MYNENI VENKATA RAO,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ACIT,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

ITA 130/VIZ/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

233 2005-06 16,30,835 2006-07 26,69,408 2007-08 41,53,703 2008-09 2,04,25,430 6.1. The Ld.AR argued that in the above assessments for the A.Y.2004-05 to 2008-09, the additions were made either from the information already available in the assessment record or by assumptions and presumptions. The Ld.AR further argued

ARUNACHALAM MANICKAVEL,PROP: BHARATHI SOAP WORKS, 1ST LANE,,GUNTUR vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1),, GUNTUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

ITA 172/VIZ/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

233 2005-06 16,30,835 2006-07 26,69,408 2007-08 41,53,703 2008-09 2,04,25,430 6.1. The Ld.AR argued that in the above assessments for the A.Y.2004-05 to 2008-09, the additions were made either from the information already available in the assessment record or by assumptions and presumptions. The Ld.AR further argued

ARUNACHALAM MANICKAVEL,PROP: BHARATHI SOAP WORKS, 1ST LANE,,GUNTUR vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1),, GUNTUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

ITA 170/VIZ/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 Mar 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

233 2005-06 16,30,835 2006-07 26,69,408 2007-08 41,53,703 2008-09 2,04,25,430 6.1. The Ld.AR argued that in the above assessments for the A.Y.2004-05 to 2008-09, the additions were made either from the information already available in the assessment record or by assumptions and presumptions. The Ld.AR further argued

ARUNACHALAM MANICKAVEL,PROP: BHARATHI SOAP WORKS, 1ST LANE,,GUNTUR vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1),, GUNTUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

ITA 168/VIZ/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 Mar 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

233 2005-06 16,30,835 2006-07 26,69,408 2007-08 41,53,703 2008-09 2,04,25,430 6.1. The Ld.AR argued that in the above assessments for the A.Y.2004-05 to 2008-09, the additions were made either from the information already available in the assessment record or by assumptions and presumptions. The Ld.AR further argued

ARUNACHALAM MANICKAVEL,PROP: BHARATHI SOAP WORKS, 1ST LANE,,GUNTUR vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1),, GUNTUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

ITA 169/VIZ/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 Mar 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

233 2005-06 16,30,835 2006-07 26,69,408 2007-08 41,53,703 2008-09 2,04,25,430 6.1. The Ld.AR argued that in the above assessments for the A.Y.2004-05 to 2008-09, the additions were made either from the information already available in the assessment record or by assumptions and presumptions. The Ld.AR further argued

ARUNACHALAM MANICKAVEL,PROP: BHARATHI SOAP WORKS, 1ST LANE,,GUNTUR vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1),, GUNTUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

ITA 171/VIZ/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

233 2005-06 16,30,835 2006-07 26,69,408 2007-08 41,53,703 2008-09 2,04,25,430 6.1. The Ld.AR argued that in the above assessments for the A.Y.2004-05 to 2008-09, the additions were made either from the information already available in the assessment record or by assumptions and presumptions. The Ld.AR further argued

ARUNACHALAM MANICKAVEL,PROP: BHARATHI SOAP WORKS, 1ST LANE,,GUNTUR vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1),, GUNTUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

ITA 173/VIZ/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

233 2005-06 16,30,835 2006-07 26,69,408 2007-08 41,53,703 2008-09 2,04,25,430 6.1. The Ld.AR argued that in the above assessments for the A.Y.2004-05 to 2008-09, the additions were made either from the information already available in the assessment record or by assumptions and presumptions. The Ld.AR further argued