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 7clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai5,260Delhi4,398Bangalore1,646Chennai1,303Kolkata827Karnataka778Jaipur631Hyderabad594Ahmedabad579Pune441Chandigarh346Surat320Indore223Telangana217Cochin184Rajkot137Amritsar135Visakhapatnam132Raipur115Nagpur112Lucknow112SC79Cuttack69Calcutta69Patna69Agra63Jodhpur40Guwahati35Dehradun25Varanasi25Rajasthan24Allahabad22Kerala22Jabalpur15Panaji9Orissa9Ranchi8Punjab & Haryana4A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN4Andhra Pradesh2Himachal Pradesh2Gauhati2H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1J&K1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1ARIJIT PASAYAT C.K. THAKKER1ANIL R. DAVE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 23Section 11A3Penalty2Exemption2

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)

7) After any goods have been taken charge of and a receipt given for them under this section, no liability for any loss or damage which may occur to them shall attach to any person to whom a receipt has been given or to the matter or owner of the vessel from which the goods have been landed or transshipped

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

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

7 of 18 Page 8 JUDGMENT in the market which was sufficient to hold that the new commodity has come into existence as for a product to be marketable it is not necessary that the products should be actually marketed but they should be capable of marketing since cold reducing is being independently by multiple number of units either

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

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

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

7. The appeal filed to the Tribunal was also dismissed, the Tribunal arriving at the same conclusion as the learned Commissioner. The Tribunal in addition found that there is no transaction value at all and, therefore, Rule 8 will have to be referred to and relied upon and a best judgment assessment was to be made. The Tribunal then went