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.

2 results for “house property”+ Section 80P(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai72Bangalore28Delhi22Kolkata17Jaipur17Indore8Pune7Chandigarh7Cochin5Visakhapatnam3Rajkot2Ahmedabad2Chennai2Hyderabad2SC2Surat2Nagpur1

Key Topics

Section 5710Section 562Section 80P(2)(c)2Deduction2Disallowance2Addition to Income2

THE VENUS PARKLAND CO.OPERATGIVE HOUSING SERVICE SOCIETY LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3(3)(5),, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 1039/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 56Section 57Section 80PSection 80P(2)(c)

section 80P(2) (c) (ii) of the Act which the Ld. A.O. has not allowed and for this purpose, assessee referred to the Ground No. 3 under which said relief is sought. Ld. Counsel by referring to Page 7 of Paper Book contended that the basic purpose of assessee co-op society is to maintain the property of the members

NAUTILUS PREMISE OWNERS ASSOCIATION,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(2), VADODARA

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

ITA 2146/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Manish J Shah & Shri Rushin Patel, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Rajenkumar M Vasavda, Sr. DR
Section 56Section 57

property. Neither of these income streams depends on the security, cleanliness, or maintenance of the common areas of the complex. 3. Furthermore, it is important to note that the rent income declared by the appellant is nominal (Rs. 32,540), whereas the total expenses claimed are disproportionately high at Rs. 27,57,686. Even if some of these expenses could