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 23(1)(c)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,317Delhi1,243Bangalore430Jaipur273Hyderabad218Chennai207Ahmedabad176Chandigarh174Kolkata130Pune107Indore81Cochin78Raipur65Rajkot59SC59Surat49Amritsar48Visakhapatnam36Nagpur34Lucknow27Patna27Cuttack23Guwahati21Agra15Allahabad8Jodhpur6Varanasi4A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN3Ranchi1Jabalpur1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Dehradun1ANIL R. DAVE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1

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

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

c) A total duty of Rs.7,36,88,521/- (Rupees Seven Crores Thirty Six Lakhs Eighty Eight Thousand Five Hundred Twenty One only) being the import duty short paid should not be demanded under proviso to Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 as detailed in the Annexure to this notice, (d) interest at applicable rate

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. 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