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.

360 results for “house property”+ Section 48clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,847Mumbai1,708Bangalore697Karnataka604Chennai378Jaipur362Ahmedabad360Hyderabad323Kolkata282Pune200Chandigarh181Indore171Cochin163Surat121Telangana114Visakhapatnam109Amritsar85Raipur74Calcutta56Nagpur48Lucknow46Cuttack44Rajkot41SC37Agra35Guwahati30Patna26Jodhpur19Kerala11Varanasi9Rajasthan7Allahabad6Ranchi5Panaji4Orissa4Jabalpur3Dehradun3Punjab & Haryana1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Addition to Income62Section 14A49Disallowance49Section 143(3)45Section 2(15)30Deduction30Section 14827Depreciation18Section 271(1)(c)17

THE ACIT,(OSD)CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD vs. TORRENT POWER LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the Cross-objection of the assessee, both are dismissed

ITA 1668/AHD/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Mar 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Vartik ChowkshiFor Respondent: Shri Samir Tekriwal, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 14Section 143(3)Section 14A

House Vs. Ahmedabad Nr.Dinesh Hall Off Ashram Road, Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AACCT 0294 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent & Cross Objector) Revenue by : Shri Samir Tekriwal, CIT-DR Assessee by : Shri Vartik Chowkshi सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date of Hearing 03/03/2020 05 /03/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement आदेश

Showing 1–20 of 360 · Page 1 of 18

...
Section 1117
Section 143(2)16
Section 43B16

SHRI ATULBHAI BABULAL SHAH,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-11,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 966/AHD/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Feb 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountantmember & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divatia, ARFor Respondent: Shri L.P.Jain, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

section 24(a) and 24(b) of the Act. The AO further observed that the assessee is not entitled for the deduction of interest expenses against the rental income chargeable to tax under the head income from other sources for the reason that the interest expenses was not incurred for the running of such rental income. Accordingly the AO denied

SHRI ATULBHAI BABUBHAI SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,RANGE-10,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2493/AHD/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountantmember & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divatia, ARFor Respondent: Shri L.P.Jain, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

section 24(a) and 24(b) of the Act. The AO further observed that the assessee is not entitled for the deduction of interest expenses against the rental income chargeable to tax under the head income from other sources for the reason that the interest expenses was not incurred for the running of such rental income. Accordingly the AO denied

SHRI ATUL BABUBHAI SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT.CIT.,RANGE-10,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 76/AHD/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Feb 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountantmember & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divatia, ARFor Respondent: Shri L.P.Jain, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

section 24(a) and 24(b) of the Act. The AO further observed that the assessee is not entitled for the deduction of interest expenses against the rental income chargeable to tax under the head income from other sources for the reason that the interest expenses was not incurred for the running of such rental income. Accordingly the AO denied

GUJARAT VENTURE CAPITAL FUND 1995,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-10,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2869/AHD/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Jan 2019AY 2009-10
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 45(1)Section 48Section 48(1)

House, Vs. Circle-10, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad PAN: AAATG2269D (Applicant) (Respondent) : Assessee by Shri S.N. Soparkar & Parin Shah, A.Rs : Revenue by Shri Vinod Tanwani, Sr.DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 03/01/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement: 21/01/2019 आदेश/O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The captioned appeal has been filed

NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,,ANAND vs. THE ACIT.,ANAND CIRCLE,, ANAND

In the result, Ground No. 7 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2004/AHD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Shah & Ms. Aparna Parlekr A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viii)Section 36(1)(xii)

House Property' instead of 'Profits and Gains from Business and Profession' and thereby denying deduction of depreciation and other expenditure on buildings. It is submitted that it be so held now. 4.1 The Hon'ble CIT (A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the buildings were given on lease under composite agreement in the ordinary course as a part

NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,,ANAND vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ANAND CIRCLE,, ANAND

In the result, Ground No. 7 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2994/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Shah & Ms. Aparna Parlekr A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viii)Section 36(1)(xii)

House Property' instead of 'Profits and Gains from Business and Profession' and thereby denying deduction of depreciation and other expenditure on buildings. It is submitted that it be so held now. 4.1 The Hon'ble CIT (A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the buildings were given on lease under composite agreement in the ordinary course as a part

THE ACIT,ANAND CIRCLE,, ANAND vs. NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD, ANAND

In the result, Ground No. 7 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1873/AHD/2014[2010-11]Status: PendingITAT Ahmedabad17 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Shah & Ms. Aparna Parlekr A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viii)Section 36(1)(xii)

House Property' instead of 'Profits and Gains from Business and Profession' and thereby denying deduction of depreciation and other expenditure on buildings. It is submitted that it be so held now. 4.1 The Hon'ble CIT (A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the buildings were given on lease under composite agreement in the ordinary course as a part

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX.,ANAND CIRCLE,, ANAND vs. NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD, ANAND

In the result, Ground No. 7 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2954/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Shah & Ms. Aparna Parlekr A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viii)Section 36(1)(xii)

House Property' instead of 'Profits and Gains from Business and Profession' and thereby denying deduction of depreciation and other expenditure on buildings. It is submitted that it be so held now. 4.1 The Hon'ble CIT (A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the buildings were given on lease under composite agreement in the ordinary course as a part

SHRI PURSHOTTAM B. PITRODA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, RANGE -12,, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 351/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Aug 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Mahavir Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Tushar P. Hemani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr. D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 22Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 44A

house at Shilaj for labour. One residential property is used by proprietor. Other property are used by his daughter and son. So there is no addition as notional income. The value of the all the said properties is Rs.48,57,897/- as per balance sheet. The contention of the assessee is seen and it was observed that the property income

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

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

48,49,0507- in the purchase of land for the construction of house out oi sale proceed of residential house, therefore, is entitled for deduction under section 54F to that extent. Appellant has also relied on number of judicial pronouncements. 2.5. I have gone through the judgments relied upon by the appellant and it is seen that none

SHRI NEERAV SHAILESH PAREKH,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 535/AHD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Jan 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 48

48 read with Section 55A of the Act. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions :- a) Gaurangiaben S. Shodhan (2014) 45 Taxmann.com 356 (Guj) b) Hiaben Jayantilal Shah, 310 ITR 31 c) Akash Associatioan (2016) 76 Taxmann.com 344 (Ahd. Tribunal) which is confirmed by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in (2017) 87 Taxmann.com 84. d) Eldeco Infrastructure & Properties

SHRI VITHALBHAI KALIDAS PATEL, HUF,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 303/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed)

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Divatia & Mehul Talera, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, Sr. D.R
Section 250Section 48

Section 48(ii) of the Act provides that the income chargeable under the head "capital gains" shall be computed by deduction from the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer of the capital asset the following amounts, namely, the cost of acquisition of the capital asset and the cost of any improvement thereto

SHRI DHANRAJ BAXIRAM CHOPRA,,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-5(3)(4),, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 407/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jul 2020AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Ranjan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri L.F. Jain, Sr. D.R
Section 131Section 54Section 54F

house. 5. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate this amendment and wrongly upheld the A.O.'s action of denying the benefits of the provisions of section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the appellant. 6. The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2 1 1, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. BHARAT LAKHAJI NANDWANA, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1366/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Adv. & Ms. UktiFor Respondent: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Adv. & Ms. Ukti
Section 49Section 54Section 54E

house and had claimed exemption under section 54 as well as section 54EC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"). 4. The Assessing Officer asked the assessee to substantiate the claim of exemption under section 54 and section 54EC of the Act. In response, the assessee submitted that the property sold during the year originally belonged to L.K. Nandwana

SHAILESH NATVARLAL PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(2)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 371/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad06 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Ravindra, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 54

house property at Flat No. 702, Shree Homes, Gota, Ahmedabad, by making payment on 18.06.2018, and claimed exemption under section 54 of the Act to that extent. 3. The Assessing Officer, however, accepted the indexed cost of acquisition based only on the value stated in the sale deed, i.e. Rs.4,79,325/-, and disallowed the claim of stamp duty

SHRI GIRISHBHAI VADILAL SHAH,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 332/AHD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 330, 331 & 332/Ahd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) िनधा"रण वष" Girishbhai Vadilal Shah Dcit बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम 139, V R Shah Smruti Circle – 4(1)(2), Vs. Shikshan Mandir, Nr. Ahmedabad Dharnidhar Derasar, Vasna, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, 380007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abjps3102P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Jaimin Shah, Ar अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 15/07/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: These Three Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Ahmedabad, (In Short The ‘Cit(A)’), (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) All Dated 16.03.2020 For The Assessment Year 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17. As The Issues Involved In The Three Appeals Are Common, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Vide This Common Order.

For Respondent: Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. DR
Section 40A(2)(b)Section 57

48,00,614/- were given 8-9% In fact the appellant took loan amounting to Rs 10.50,00,000/- from group companies, viz. Ahmedabad Cements Company P Ltd & Adeshwera Cements Company P Ltd @ 85% only. No reason whatsoever has been advanced that what was the exigency to take loans from specified persons @ 12% at such higher rates when the loan

SHRI GIRISHBHAI VADILAL SHAH,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 331/AHD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 330, 331 & 332/Ahd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) िनधा"रण वष" Girishbhai Vadilal Shah Dcit बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम 139, V R Shah Smruti Circle – 4(1)(2), Vs. Shikshan Mandir, Nr. Ahmedabad Dharnidhar Derasar, Vasna, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, 380007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abjps3102P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Jaimin Shah, Ar अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 15/07/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: These Three Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Ahmedabad, (In Short The ‘Cit(A)’), (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) All Dated 16.03.2020 For The Assessment Year 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17. As The Issues Involved In The Three Appeals Are Common, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Vide This Common Order.

For Respondent: Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. DR
Section 40A(2)(b)Section 57

48,00,614/- were given 8-9% In fact the appellant took loan amounting to Rs 10.50,00,000/- from group companies, viz. Ahmedabad Cements Company P Ltd & Adeshwera Cements Company P Ltd @ 85% only. No reason whatsoever has been advanced that what was the exigency to take loans from specified persons @ 12% at such higher rates when the loan