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.

119 results for “house property”+ Section 111clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi548Karnataka486Mumbai402Bangalore161Jaipur132Ahmedabad119Hyderabad88Chennai76Indore59Telangana59Cochin57Calcutta50Chandigarh45Kolkata42Pune41Amritsar40Raipur35Lucknow25Cuttack19Rajkot17Agra15Patna14SC14Surat13Visakhapatnam10Rajasthan9Jodhpur9Guwahati7Nagpur4Orissa4Allahabad3Panaji3A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1Ranchi1ARIJIT PASAYAT C.K. THAKKER1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 14A59Addition to Income53Disallowance52Section 80I42Section 143(3)37Deduction31Section 143(2)28Penalty23Section 2(15)20

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. VYAPTI INFRABUILD PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2688/AHD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Nov 2019AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri/Ms. Nupur Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri/Ms. Virendra Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 2(24)Section 22

house property, therefore, this ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No. 2505/Ahd/2017 filed by assessee 9. The ground no. 1 of the appeal of the assessee pertaining to disallowance of Rs. 28,430/- on account of delay in depositing employees contribution to PF and ESIC is dismissed as not pressed. The second ground of appeal

VYAPTI INFRABUILD PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Showing 1–20 of 119 · Page 1 of 6

Transfer Pricing19
Section 271(1)(c)16
Section 115J16
ITA 2120/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Nov 2019AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri/Ms. Nupur Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri/Ms. Virendra Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 2(24)Section 22

house property, therefore, this ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No. 2505/Ahd/2017 filed by assessee 9. The ground no. 1 of the appeal of the assessee pertaining to disallowance of Rs. 28,430/- on account of delay in depositing employees contribution to PF and ESIC is dismissed as not pressed. The second ground of appeal

THE ACIT,(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1118/AHD/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 May 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

house property”, the same cannot be changed into “income from business and profession” in subsequent year. The CIT(A) has rightly deleted the same addition and there is no need to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A). Hence, ground no.6 of Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 24. As regards ground no.7 of Revenue’s appeal, wherein

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 926/AHD/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 May 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

house property”, the same cannot be changed into “income from business and profession” in subsequent year. The CIT(A) has rightly deleted the same addition and there is no need to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A). Hence, ground no.6 of Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 24. As regards ground no.7 of Revenue’s appeal, wherein

VINODCHANDRA T PARIKH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 457/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 457/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-2014 Vinodchandra T. Parikh, I.T.O, 31, Shail, Vs. Ward-2(1)(2), Opp. Madhusudan House, Ahmedabad. Navrangpura, Ahmedabad.

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Shah, A.R with Shri Aman K. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Deelip Kumar Sr., DR
Section 27lSection 54Section 54ESection 54F

111 and contended that the assessee has complied the provisions of section 54 of the Act substantially. Therefore, the assessee cannot be denied the benefit of the provisions of section 54 of the Act merely on the reasoning that there was the delay in completing the construction of the house. 11. The learned DR before us vehemently supported the stand

SMT. MINAL NAYAN SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR, CIT-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 643/AHD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad

For Appellant: Advocate with Shri ParinFor Respondent: Shri Jitendra Kumar, CIT.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 54ESection 54F

property", otter than the new asset. 4.2 If the above view is taken, it is evident that you have purchased the entire super structure of E Block consisting of 03 independent, units, and not a residential house and hence as per the applicability clause of section 54F of the Act, you are-not eligible for the claim of deduction

THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(4), BARODA vs. SHRI NATWARBHAI J. PATEL, VADODARA

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

ITA 461/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Apr 2019AY 2012-13
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 48Section 54B

property and if such investment is made within the period stipulated therein, then Section 54F(4) is not at all attracted and therefore the contention that the assessee has not deposited the amount in the Bank account as stipulated and therefore, he is not entitled to the benefit even though he has invested the money in construction is also

SHRI NATWARBHAI J. PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(4), VADODARA

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

ITA 512/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Apr 2019AY 2012-13
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 48Section 54B

property and if such investment is made within the period stipulated therein, then Section 54F(4) is not at all attracted and therefore the contention that the assessee has not deposited the amount in the Bank account as stipulated and therefore, he is not entitled to the benefit even though he has invested the money in construction is also

SHRI VINODBHAI J. PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(5), VADODARA

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

ITA 513/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Apr 2019AY 2012-13
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 48Section 54B

property and if such investment is made within the period stipulated therein, then Section 54F(4) is not at all attracted and therefore the contention ITA Nos. 464 & 513/Ahd/2016 ITO vs. Vinodbhai J Patel -cross Assessment Year : 2012-13 Page 6 of 12 that the assessee has not deposited the amount in the Bank account as stipulated and therefore

THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(5), VADODARA vs. SHRI VINODBHAI J. PATEL, VADODARA

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

ITA 464/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Apr 2019AY 2012-13
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 48Section 54B

property and if such investment is made within the period stipulated therein, then Section 54F(4) is not at all attracted and therefore the contention ITA Nos. 464 & 513/Ahd/2016 ITO vs. Vinodbhai J Patel -cross Assessment Year : 2012-13 Page 6 of 12 that the assessee has not deposited the amount in the Bank account as stipulated and therefore

DIPAL SURESHBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-3(3)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 387/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: ShriTej Shah, ARFor Respondent: ShriL. P. Jain, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 54FSection 54F(1)

property used for residence up to 30-3-1998, inasmuch as the return of income-tax for the assessment year 1997-98 could be furnished before the expiry of one year from the end; of the relevant assessment year or before the completion of %e assessment whichever is earlier under sub-section (4) of section 139 of the Income

SHRI JITENDRA NARSINHBHAI TALPADA,,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, VADODARA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 991/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble & "नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2011-12 Ito, Ward-6(1) Shri Jitendra Narsinhbhai Talpada53, Vadodara. Atmajyotinagar Society Vs. Nr. Tejas Vidyalaya, Ellora Park Vadodara 390 023. Pan : Aagpt 2465 A (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Ms.Urvashi Shodhan, Ar Revenue By : Shri Deelipkumar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 07/01/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/01/2020

For Appellant: Ms.Urvashi Shodhan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Deelipkumar, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 250

house property income at Rs.20,35,116/- after giving deduction under section 24(a) of the Act at Rs.6,10,535/-, he made addition of Rs.14,24,581/-. In this way, total income of the assessee has been determined at Rs.22,03,058/-. Dissatisfied with this treatment, the assessee carried the matter in appeal. The ld.CIT(A) has dismissed

SHRI JITENDRA NARSINHBHAI TALPADA,,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1)(1),, VADODARA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2574/AHD/2017[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Jan 2020AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble & "नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2011-12 Ito, Ward-6(1) Shri Jitendra Narsinhbhai Talpada53, Vadodara. Atmajyotinagar Society Vs. Nr. Tejas Vidyalaya, Ellora Park Vadodara 390 023. Pan : Aagpt 2465 A (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Ms.Urvashi Shodhan, Ar Revenue By : Shri Deelipkumar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 07/01/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/01/2020

For Appellant: Ms.Urvashi Shodhan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Deelipkumar, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 250

house property income at Rs.20,35,116/- after giving deduction under section 24(a) of the Act at Rs.6,10,535/-, he made addition of Rs.14,24,581/-. In this way, total income of the assessee has been determined at Rs.22,03,058/-. Dissatisfied with this treatment, the assessee carried the matter in appeal. The ld.CIT(A) has dismissed

AXIS BANK LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1 NOW CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 311/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Oct 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedsl. Ita No(S) Asset. Appeal(S) By No(S) Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 311/Ahd/2016 2010-11 Axis Bank Limited, D.C.I.T., “Trishul”, 3Rd Floor, Circle-1(1)(1) Opp. Samtheshwar Ahmedabad. Mahadev Near Law Garden, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad-380006. Pan: Aaacu2414K 2. 2176/Ahd/2016 2011-12 Axis Bank Limited, D.C.I.T., “Trishul”, 3Rd Floor, Circle-1(1)(1) Opp. Samtheshwar Ahmedabad. Mahadev Near Law Garden, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad-380006. Pan: Aaacu2414K 3. 2173/Ahd/2016 2011-12 D.C.I.T., Axis Bank Limited, Circle-1(1)(1) Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad. Pan: Aaacu2414K 4. 165/Ahd/2017 2012-13 Axis Bank Limited, D.C.I.T., Ahmedabad. Circle-1(1)(1) Ahmedabad. Pan: Aaacu2414K 5. 287/Ahd/2017 2012-13 D.C.I.T., Axis Bank Limited, Circle-1(1)(1) Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad. Pan: Aaacu2414K 6-7 520 & 2013-14 Axis Bank Limited, D.C.I.T., 521/Ahd/2018 & Ahmedabad. Circle-1(1)(1) 2014-15 Ahmedabad. Pan: Aaacu2414K 8-9 604 & 605/ 2013-14 D.C.I.T., Axis Bank Limited, Ahd/2018 & Circle-1(1)(1) Ahmedabad. 2014-15 Ahmedabad. Pan: Aaacu2414K

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate with Smt. Urvashi Shodhan, and Shri Parin Shah,For Respondent: Shri Anshu Prakash, CIT.DR
Section 14A

section 43D is a beneficial provision but the provision iS very clear when it states that " {a} in the case of a scheduled bank the income by way of interest in relation to such categories of bad and^dou^btful debts as may be prescribed having regard to the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India in relation

ATUL LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1681/AHD/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Feb 2022AY 2005-06
For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mohd Usman, CIT/DR
Section 250(6)Section 92C

section 92CA(1) of the Act on account of determination of arm's length price of international transaction entered into by the assessee. 19. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) upheld the findings of the AO while relying upon his own decision for the AY 2003-04. 20. The assessee is now in appeal before us against the aforesaid findings

CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

Appeal are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 17/AHD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Sept 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Patel, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr. D.R
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 234CSection 271(1)(c)Section 32Section 35

property transferred or services provided in a comparable uncontrolled transaction, or a number of such transactions, is identified, and then such price is adjusted to account for differences, if any, between the international transaction and the comparable uncontrolled transactions or between the enterprises entering into such transactions, which could materially affect the price in the o pen market. Usually loan

M/S. MADHUVAN CORPORATION,VADODARA vs. THE ADDL. CIT, CENTRAL RANGE, VADODARA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1072/AHD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. J. Vyas, Sr. D.R
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 269SSection 271D

Housing Project and, as reproduced at page 3 of the assessment order, contained notings of amounts in hundreds with dates and signatures against each amount. The signatures were that of Mr. Vishal Talva. That some of the entries had “CHQ” mentioned against it, one of which matched with the cheque entry in the assessees HDFC bank account , but the amount

ITO, WARD-2(1) (1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. EYLEX FILMS PVT. LTD., RANCHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1808/AHD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Justice Shri P. P. Bhatt & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar & ShriFor Respondent: Bandish Soparkar, A.Rs
Section 194JSection 194jSection 40Section 9

property of the produce through the distributors. 3.4. On the other side, the appellant has submitted that it was mainly the exhibitor of the films by procuring from the distributors. Further it has also derived the monthly fixed charges income for facilitating small ITA Nos. 1808/Ahd/17 & 388/Ahd/18 [ITO vs. M/s. Eylex Films P. Ltd.] A.Ys

ITO, WARD-2(1) (1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. EYLEX FILMS PVT. LTD., RANCHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 388/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Justice Shri P. P. Bhatt & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar & ShriFor Respondent: Bandish Soparkar, A.Rs
Section 194JSection 194jSection 40Section 9

property of the produce through the distributors. 3.4. On the other side, the appellant has submitted that it was mainly the exhibitor of the films by procuring from the distributors. Further it has also derived the monthly fixed charges income for facilitating small ITA Nos. 1808/Ahd/17 & 388/Ahd/18 [ITO vs. M/s. Eylex Films P. Ltd.] A.Ys

LOXIM INDUSTRIES LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT (OSD)-1, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the captioned appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1564/AHD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Divatia, A.R
Section 10ASection 10BSection 250

111 TTJ 548 After considering all facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to agree with the contention of the appellant. It is seen that the as mentioned above also the AO allowed deduction u/s. 10B of the Act based on CBDT Circular F.No. 279/Misc./M-116/2012-ITJ dated 16.7.2013 where it has been clearly held that deduction