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 20clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai3,444Delhi3,154Bangalore1,181Chennai766Karnataka694Kolkata508Jaipur503Hyderabad415Ahmedabad392Chandigarh273Surat232Pune230Telangana176Indore168Cochin118Rajkot105Amritsar103Raipur92Lucknow85Nagpur83Visakhapatnam80SC68Calcutta60Cuttack46Agra42Patna42Guwahati31Jodhpur25Rajasthan23Allahabad16Varanasi14Kerala13Jabalpur9Dehradun8Orissa8A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN4Panaji4Punjab & Haryana3Gauhati2Ranchi2Andhra Pradesh2H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1ARIJIT PASAYAT C.K. THAKKER1ANIL R. DAVE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1

Key Topics

Section 23Section 11A3Penalty2Exemption2

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

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

property of GE. Removed assemblies are to be in a repairable condition.” 15. From this document what becomes clear is that the prices stated in the invoices accompanying the bills of entry in the present case are list unit prices or catalogue prices. By no stretch of imagination can they said to be prices after re-exported items’ value

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

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

20,563/- after extending the benefit of small scale exemption and imposing penalty of Rs.12,32,563/- on the assessee. The Commissioner held the process of cold-rolling to be amounting to manufacture, in terms of Chapter Note 4 to Chapter 72. The Commissioner also imposed penalties on the suppliers of the materials. On the appeals filed by the assessee

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)

20% of wharfage charges that was paid under the agreement was really only a measure to calculate what is in fact payable as licence fee and that, therefore, the agreement read as a whole would lead to the conclusion that no service was in fact rendered by the respondent and, therefore, no service tax could be collected

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

Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, there is no mention of the test of integral or inextricable process and found that the wrong test had been applied to arrive at the wrong result. 5. The CESTAT in turn set aside the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) observing: “An Article with distinct brand name and separate