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.

105 results for “house property”+ Section 48clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai983Delhi956Bangalore368Hyderabad206Jaipur202Chennai139Chandigarh132Ahmedabad105Kolkata101Pune92Cochin89Indore78Raipur62Amritsar57SC37Nagpur33Agra32Surat31Visakhapatnam27Lucknow26Rajkot26Patna26Guwahati23Cuttack14Jodhpur11Varanasi5Panaji3Jabalpur3Dehradun2Allahabad1Ranchi1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1

Key Topics

Section 80I90Addition to Income72Section 143(3)56Disallowance47Section 143(2)45Deduction41Section 14731Section 14825Section 14A22

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

Showing 1–20 of 105 · Page 1 of 6

Depreciation22
Section 271(1)(c)21
Penalty20

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

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

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

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

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 330/AHD/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

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

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

ZYDUS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD.),AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

ITA 162/AHD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 162/Ahd/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 92BSection 92C

Section 144C of the Act was passed in this case by the ACIT, Circle-1(1)(2) on 12.12.2019. The Ld. AO proposed the following addition: ITA No. 162/Ahd/2021 (Zydus Lifesciences Ltd. vs. DCIT) A.Y.– 2016-17 - 5 – A. Income from House Property [as per Return of Income] Rs. 10,34,525/- B. Business Income [as per Return of income

UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED,MEHSANA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, Ground No

ITA 292/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Dsouza, CIT DR
Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 32(1)(iia)

48,000 Penalties Recovered from Employees 19,000 Insurance Premium recovered for House building Advance Loan 1,10,000 Receipt under Right to information (RT) Act, 2005 8,000 Other Miscellaneous Receipts 4,12,73,000 (This income is from other than above all account heads, major amount consists amount in respect of unclaimed security deposit, Earnest Money Deposit

UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED,MEHSANA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, Ground No

ITA 294/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Dsouza, CIT DR
Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 32(1)(iia)

48,000 Penalties Recovered from Employees 19,000 Insurance Premium recovered for House building Advance Loan 1,10,000 Receipt under Right to information (RT) Act, 2005 8,000 Other Miscellaneous Receipts 4,12,73,000 (This income is from other than above all account heads, major amount consists amount in respect of unclaimed security deposit, Earnest Money Deposit

UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED,MEHSANA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, Ground No

ITA 293/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Dsouza, CIT DR
Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 32(1)(iia)

48,000 Penalties Recovered from Employees 19,000 Insurance Premium recovered for House building Advance Loan 1,10,000 Receipt under Right to information (RT) Act, 2005 8,000 Other Miscellaneous Receipts 4,12,73,000 (This income is from other than above all account heads, major amount consists amount in respect of unclaimed security deposit, Earnest Money Deposit

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA vs. UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED, MEHSANA

In the result, Ground No

ITA 269/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Dsouza, CIT DR
Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 32(1)(iia)

48,000 Penalties Recovered from Employees 19,000 Insurance Premium recovered for House building Advance Loan 1,10,000 Receipt under Right to information (RT) Act, 2005 8,000 Other Miscellaneous Receipts 4,12,73,000 (This income is from other than above all account heads, major amount consists amount in respect of unclaimed security deposit, Earnest Money Deposit

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA vs. UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED, MEHSANA

In the result, Ground No

ITA 270/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Dsouza, CIT DR
Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 32(1)(iia)

48,000 Penalties Recovered from Employees 19,000 Insurance Premium recovered for House building Advance Loan 1,10,000 Receipt under Right to information (RT) Act, 2005 8,000 Other Miscellaneous Receipts 4,12,73,000 (This income is from other than above all account heads, major amount consists amount in respect of unclaimed security deposit, Earnest Money Deposit

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA vs. UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED, MEHSANA

In the result, Ground No

ITA 271/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Dsouza, CIT DR
Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 32(1)(iia)

48,000 Penalties Recovered from Employees 19,000 Insurance Premium recovered for House building Advance Loan 1,10,000 Receipt under Right to information (RT) Act, 2005 8,000 Other Miscellaneous Receipts 4,12,73,000 (This income is from other than above all account heads, major amount consists amount in respect of unclaimed security deposit, Earnest Money Deposit

THE ACIT, MEHSANA CIRCLE, MEHSANA vs. SHRI UMESH VADILAL KHAMAR, MEHSANA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1136/AHD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Trivedi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-DR
Section 131Section 131(3)Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

house property. Vide appellate order dated 17.12.2018, the addition of Rs.51,60,000/- was confirmed whereas the addition of Rs.26,60,000/- was deleted for the reason that it was the outgoing investment from the incoming undisclosed income of Rs.51,60,000/-. In the case of Shri Rajnikant V. Khamar, who was acting as commission agent and not involved

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA vs. MADHYA GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD., VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 368/AHD/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234Section 271(1)(c)Section 32(1)(iia)

48,484/- towards additional depreciation by giving the detailed reason that assessee company is not eligible to claim additional depreciation as it is engaged only in distribution of electricity. Further as per section 32(1)(iia), additional depreciation is allowable to the entities who are in the business of generation or generation and distribution of power. I.T.A

MADHYA GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED,VADODARA vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 372/AHD/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234Section 271(1)(c)Section 32(1)(iia)

48,484/- towards additional depreciation by giving the detailed reason that assessee company is not eligible to claim additional depreciation as it is engaged only in distribution of electricity. Further as per section 32(1)(iia), additional depreciation is allowable to the entities who are in the business of generation or generation and distribution of power. I.T.A