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.

70 results for “house property”+ Section 111clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi553Karnataka486Mumbai415Bangalore168Jaipur127Hyderabad99Chennai76Ahmedabad70Telangana59Cochin57Calcutta50Chandigarh44Kolkata44Amritsar40Raipur35Indore34Pune28Lucknow26Cuttack19Rajkot17Agra15Surat14SC14Patna14Rajasthan9Jodhpur9Guwahati7Orissa4Nagpur4Panaji3Allahabad3Visakhapatnam2Ranchi1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1ARIJIT PASAYAT C.K. THAKKER1Andhra Pradesh1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 80I54Addition to Income46Disallowance37Section 143(2)31Section 143(3)28Deduction27Section 115J25Section 14A20Penalty18

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

Showing 1–20 of 70 · Page 1 of 4

Section 271(1)(c)16
Transfer Pricing16
Depreciation13

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

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

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

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

ADANI ENTERPRISES LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 2035/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedasstt. Sr.No.

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate with Shri Vartik Choksi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mohd. Usman, C.I.T.DR
Section 143(3)Section 28Section 35Section 92C

House, Nr. No.2030/Ahd/2016 2011-12 D.C.I.T, Mithakhali Six Roads, 3-4 & & Circle-1(1)(1), Navrangpura, No.913/Ahd/2018 2012-13 Ahmedabad Ahmedabad. PAN :AABCA2804L (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee by : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate with Shri Vartik Choksi, A.R Shri Parin Shah, A.R Revenue by : Shri Mohd. Usman, C.I.T.DR सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 20/04/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date of Pronouncement

SWASTIK DEVELOPERS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 955/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2017-2018 Swastik Developers The Ito, Ward-3(3)(5), 21, Swastik House Vs. Ahmedabad. B/H.Sardar Patel Stadium Ahmedabad. Pan : Acyfs 0641 R (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Prashant Shrivastav, Ar Assessee By : Shri Hargovind Singh, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/08/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/08/2025

For Appellant: Shri Hargovind Singh, Sr.DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 68Section 69

House Vs. Ahmedabad. B/h.Sardar Patel Stadium Ahmedabad. PAN : ACYFS 0641 R (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Prashant Shrivastav, AR Assessee by : Shri Hargovind Singh, Sr.DR Revenue by सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 06/08/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 07/08/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश PER MAKARAND V.MAHADEOKAR, AM: This appeal has been preferred by the assessee

GUJARAT STATE FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LTD.,,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE-1(1)1(), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 348/AHD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Manish J. Shah, Shri Jimi Patel and Shri Rushin Patel, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Durga Dutt, CIT (DR) &
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144(2)Section 14ASection 35Section 80GSection 8D(2)(ii)

properties of the assessee and the Assessing Officer has not provided any basis in respect of disallowance on interest on such short- term borrowings. It was argued that the total interest received by the Company exceeds the total amount of interest paid, thereby there is no net interest expenditure incurred by the assessee that should be allocated to CWIP

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA vs. GUJARAT STATE FERTILIZER & CHEMICAL LTD, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 538/AHD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Manish J. Shah, Shri Jimi Patel and Shri Rushin Patel, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Durga Dutt, CIT (DR) &
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144(2)Section 14ASection 35Section 80GSection 8D(2)(ii)

properties of the assessee and the Assessing Officer has not provided any basis in respect of disallowance on interest on such short- term borrowings. It was argued that the total interest received by the Company exceeds the total amount of interest paid, thereby there is no net interest expenditure incurred by the assessee that should be allocated to CWIP

DHARMENBHAI MAHENDRABHAI SUTARIA,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 252/AHD/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalasstt. Sr.No.

For Appellant: Ms Nupur Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

111 taxmann.com 66 (Madras) [09- 08-2019] has held as under :- III. Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Penalty For concealment of income (Capital gains) - Assessment years 2001-02 and 2002-03 - Whether where land sold by assessee was held to be non-agricultural land, and, thus, was not exempt from tax and assessee was consciously

DHARMENBHAI MAHENDRABHAI SUTARIA,HUF,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), , AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 253/AHD/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalasstt. Sr.No.

For Appellant: Ms Nupur Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

111 taxmann.com 66 (Madras) [09- 08-2019] has held as under :- III. Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Penalty For concealment of income (Capital gains) - Assessment years 2001-02 and 2002-03 - Whether where land sold by assessee was held to be non-agricultural land, and, thus, was not exempt from tax and assessee was consciously

DHARMENBHAI MAHENDRABHAI SUTARIA,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 251/AHD/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Apr 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalasstt. Sr.No.

For Appellant: Ms Nupur Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

111 taxmann.com 66 (Madras) [09- 08-2019] has held as under :- III. Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Penalty For concealment of income (Capital gains) - Assessment years 2001-02 and 2002-03 - Whether where land sold by assessee was held to be non-agricultural land, and, thus, was not exempt from tax and assessee was consciously

SIRHIND STEELS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR.CIT-4, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 713/AHD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 713/Ahd/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-2015 Sirhind Steel Ltd., P.C.I.T-4, 7Th Floor, Shalin Building, Vs. Ambawadi, Nr. Nehru Bridge Corner, Ahmedabad. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad.

For Appellant: Shri Vartik R. Choksi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Sharma, CIT.D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 50

Properties & Infrastructure Ltd. reported in 20 taxmann.com 770 where it was held as under: As per section 2(11), the expression 'block of assets' means group of assets falling within the assets enumerated in clauses (a) and (b). Clause (a ) refers to tangible assets, including building, machinery, plant and clause (b) refers to intangible assets like copyright, know how, trade

THE ITO, WARD-5(1),, BARODA vs. SHRI KANUBHAI M.PATEL, BARODA

In the result, Ground No.1 of Department’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2913/AHD/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Apr 2022AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri V.K. Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 131Section 50Section 50C

house on one of the plots. The reason given by the appellant for the purchase of the properties by the mills had been rejected by the Tribunal; and so when the mills I.T.A No. 2913/Ahd/2012 A.Y. 2009-10 Page No. 13 ITO vs. Shri Kanubhai M. Patel purchased the properties it was not shown that the sale was occasioned