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 2(71)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,393Mumbai1,321Karnataka558Bangalore548Chennai268Jaipur224Hyderabad208Ahmedabad192Kolkata171Surat164Chandigarh111Pune85Indore83Cochin65Telangana65Calcutta57Raipur57Amritsar50Lucknow48Cuttack36Nagpur29Agra26Rajkot23SC21Visakhapatnam14Jodhpur12Guwahati8Patna7Rajasthan7Varanasi3Orissa3Punjab & Haryana3Allahabad2Panaji2Jabalpur2Dehradun1Andhra Pradesh1Ranchi1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)4Section 683Section 1432Section 562Addition to Income2

M/S. GOVIND STONE PRIVATE LIMITED ,HAMIRPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -5(4), BANDA

ITA 258/ALLD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad19 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri. R. S. Agrawal, Adv. &VinayGoel, C.AFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Singh Sr.D.R
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56Section 68

house, 4 Faile Place, Notice Served Private Limited 2nd Floor, Kolkata-700001 2 AprajitaVanijya 7A, Bentinck Street, Insufficient address, Private Limited Kolkata-700001 hence returned to sender Zigzag Vanijya 146/2, Old China Bazar, No mention floor 3 Private Limited Kolkata-700001 R/No. hence R. to sender 4 ShradhaVintrade 9/12, Lal Bazar, 2nd Floor, Insufficient address, Private Limited Kolkata-700001 hence

MEJA URJA NIGAM (P) LTD.,ALLAHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE WARD-2 (2), ALLAHABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for ay: 2015-16 and 2016-17

ITA 54/ALLD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad03 Mar 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Ms.Namita S. Pandey, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Parv Agrawal, CA
Section 143(3)

2. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in making the addition of Rs. 6,39,33,174 received as interest on advances given to contractors for construction work because the said receipts are inextricably linked with plant set up activities and hence is in the nature of Capital Receipt and are being set off against Expenditure during construction period, This