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 255(4)clear

Sorted by relevance

Karnataka430Delhi326Mumbai266Bangalore166Chandigarh71Jaipur60Chennai57Calcutta50Ahmedabad39Indore31Hyderabad31Telangana29Kolkata23Pune23Cochin21Surat18Guwahati16Rajkot11Visakhapatnam8Cuttack8Patna8SC7Jodhpur5Lucknow5Rajasthan4Nagpur4Panaji3Orissa2Amritsar2Kerala2Dehradun1Raipur1Andhra Pradesh1Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 1488Section 1474Section 143(3)2Reopening of Assessment2

SHRI ARNESH KUMAR SHAKAR EX. MLA,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, DASUYA

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

ITA 6/ASR/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 54Section 54F

property was transferred. But the addition would be attracted to the assessment year 2010-11 on which year the assessee violated the provision of 54F of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) made this opinion in his order. On basis of this order, the reopening was executed. Accordingly, the ld. AO framed assessment u/s 147/143(3) of the Act. Aggrieved

SH. VARINDER KUMAR SOUL,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(2), JALANDHAR

ITA 451/ASR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Jan 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 451(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Pan: Cvips 5218R

For Appellant: Sh. Ashray Sarna (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Ghulam Mustafa (D. R.)
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)

Section 143(2), per which the law provides for the said verification, and sec. 147, operate in different fields, even as explained in Vipan Khanna v. CIT [2002] 255 ITR 220 (P&H). Be that as it may, there is equally no doubt that the AO had a valid reason to believe escapement from assessment qua rental income. The same