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.

4 results for “house property”+ Section 13(1)(d)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,944Delhi1,424Bangalore623Chennai388Jaipur388Hyderabad247Ahmedabad235Pune176Chandigarh172Kolkata150Indore140Cochin122Raipur82SC68Visakhapatnam67Surat66Rajkot62Nagpur59Lucknow53Patna33Agra31Cuttack28Amritsar25Guwahati23Jodhpur15Varanasi11Allahabad10Dehradun7Panaji6A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN4Ranchi4Jabalpur3T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1

Key Topics

Section 23Section 11A3Penalty2Exemption2

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

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

d) refer only to the very goods that are imported and not to goods which may have been imported much earlier to the imported goods. Therefore, what is necessary is that there should be proceeds which arise from re-sale, disposal, or use of the very imported goods by the buyer. The case of the department is that these

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

M/S. SERVO-MED INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment is hereby set aside

C.A. No.-000583-000583 - 2005Supreme Court07 May 2015
Section 2

D G M E N T R.F. Nariman, J. 1. Between June 1995 and March 1997, the appellants purchased syringes and needles in bulk from the open market. They would then sterilize the syringes and the needles and put one syringe and one needle in an unassembled form in a printed plastic pouch. The syringe and the needle were capable