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.

3 results for “house property”+ Section 13(1)(b)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,699Delhi1,608Bangalore624Jaipur388Chennai337Hyderabad312Ahmedabad213Pune211Chandigarh208Kolkata166Indore112Cochin109Raipur83Amritsar66Rajkot65SC65Surat58Nagpur52Lucknow51Visakhapatnam40Agra37Patna30Guwahati24Jodhpur23Cuttack23Allahabad9Dehradun7Varanasi7Panaji4Jabalpur3A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN3Ranchi2T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1

Key Topics

Section 11A3Section 22Penalty2Exemption2

M/S GMR ENERGY LTD. vs. COMMR.OF CUSTOMS,BANGALORE

C.A. No.-004920-004920 - 2007Supreme Court27 Oct 2015

13. We will, therefore, have to proceed on the footing that Rule 8 alone applies, and that the best judgment assessment made by the Commissioner would have to be reasonable and not arbitrary. 14. We find that the basis of the Commissioner’s order as well as the Tribunal’s order is clause 2.8 of the LTAPSA

COMMR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BHAVNAGAR vs. M/S GUJARAT MARITIME BOARD,JAFRABAD

C.A. No.-003347-003348 - 2014Supreme Court22 Jul 2015
Section 37Section 65(82)

1) on such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon. (4) No person authorized under sub-section (3) shall charge or recover for such service any sum in excess of the amount leviable according to the scale framed under Section 37, 38 or 40. (5) Any such person shall, if so required by the owner perform in respect

M/S GUJARAT INDUSTRIES vs. COMMR.OF CENTRAL EXCISE-I,AHMEDABAD

C.A. No.-005784-005788 - 2007Supreme Court14 Dec 2015
Section 11ASection 2

1 of 18 Page 2 JUDGMENT Excise Act, 1944? (b) Whether the Custom Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) was correct in holding that the process of cold-rolling of stainless steel patta/pattis amounts to manufacture in view of Chapter No.4 of Chapter No.72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, when the said Chapter Note was not even referred