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.

2 results for “house property”+ Section 56(2)(vii)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi586Mumbai390Bangalore196Chandigarh116Hyderabad93Jaipur80Chennai72Cochin64Ahmedabad44Pune36Raipur30Indore25Kolkata23SC23Lucknow21Guwahati21Nagpur18Rajkot9Jodhpur9Cuttack7Patna7Agra4Surat4Visakhapatnam2Dehradun2Ranchi1Amritsar1T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)3Section 683Section 143(2)2Section 56(2)(x)2Addition to Income2

INCOMETAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SURENDRA NATH GUBBALA, VISAKHAPATNAM

ITA 482/VIZ/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Us:

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 48

vii) Rajendra Mining Syndicate Vs. CIT (1991) 43 ITR 460 (AP). viii) CIT Vs. Jagadish Sugar Mills (1974) Tax LR 526 (All.) ix) CIT Vs. MD Manohar Rao (1985) 155 ITR 696 (AP). x) Rohtak Textile Mills Ltd (1982) 138 ITR 195 (Del). xi) B.N. Pinto Vs. CIT (1974) 96 ITR 306 (Kar). xii) CIT Vs. C.V. Soundararajan

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

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

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

56(2)(x)(b) * B is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive; 8. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre ought to have afforded sufficient opportunity to the appellant before passing the assessment order and confirmed the addition without considering the submission of the assessee, therefore order passed is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. 9. The assessee is denied