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.

69 results for “house property”+ Section 4(1)(a)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai5,588Delhi4,518Bangalore1,686Chennai1,382Kolkata889Karnataka831Jaipur678Hyderabad657Ahmedabad637Pune496Chandigarh360Surat323Indore251Telangana218Cochin206Visakhapatnam181Amritsar152Rajkot147Raipur120Nagpur116Lucknow115Cuttack83SC83Patna72Calcutta69Agra67Jodhpur53Guwahati42Dehradun30Allahabad25Varanasi25Rajasthan23Kerala20Jabalpur19Ranchi14Panaji10Orissa9Punjab & Haryana5A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN4Himachal Pradesh2Gauhati2Andhra Pradesh2ARIJIT PASAYAT C.K. THAKKER1ANIL R. DAVE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1J&K1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1

Key Topics

Section 13(1)(e)8Section 260A7Section 13(2)6Section 1385Section 735Section 53A5Section 1094Section 2634Addition to Income4

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5 KOLKATA vs. PREMIER TIE UP PVT LTD

ITAT/81/2022HC Calcutta26 Sept 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA

For Respondent: Mr. Dhruba Ghosh, Adv
Section 34Section 36(1)Section 36(2)

4) A party may challenge an arbitrator appointed by him, or in whose appointment he has participated, only for reasons of which he becomes aware after the appointment has been made.” 42. Section 12(2) of the Act requires an Arbitrator from the time of his appointment and throughout the arbitral proceedings, to mandatorily disclose to the parties, “without delay

M/S. OBEROI BUILDING & INVESTMENT (P) LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, KOLKATA & ANR.

The appeal is allowed

ITA/168/2010

Showing 1–20 of 69 · Page 1 of 4

House Property4
Capital Gains3
Deduction2
HC Calcutta
15 Dec 2023

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI,HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ

For Respondent: - Mr. Smarajit Roychowdhury, Adv
Section 22Section 269USection 27Section 28

1. Heard Shri Akhilesh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Smarajit Roychowdhury learned counsel for the Income Tax Department/respondents. 2. This appeal arises from the order dated 23.07.2010 in ITA No.330 (Kol) of 2008 [assessment year 2005-06]: Income Tax Officer / Ward-6(3), Kolkata v. M/s. Oberoi Building & Investment (P) Ltd., 2 Kolkata passed

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , ASANSOL vs. EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD

Appeal is allowed on contest

ITAT/96/2018HC Calcutta04 Jan 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

For Appellant: Mr. Milon Mukherjee, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Pulakesh Bajpayee, Adv
Section 109Section 120BSection 13(1)(e)Section 13(2)Section 7

4 5. PW15 Suryakant Prasad took up the case for investigation. He collected the documents seized in RC 1(A)/2013 in order to implicate the accused persons in this case after obtaining an order from the learned Special Judge, Patiala Court, Delhi. During investigation of RC Case No.1(A)/2013 a sum of Rs.36,42,000/- was recovered

M/S. OUTOTEC GMBH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAX)-2(1)

Appeal is allowed on contest

ITA/96/2018HC Calcutta17 Aug 2021

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL, CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING),HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ

For Appellant: Mr. Milon Mukherjee, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Pulakesh Bajpayee, Adv
Section 109Section 120BSection 13(1)(e)Section 13(2)Section 7

4 5. PW15 Suryakant Prasad took up the case for investigation. He collected the documents seized in RC 1(A)/2013 in order to implicate the accused persons in this case after obtaining an order from the learned Special Judge, Patiala Court, Delhi. During investigation of RC Case No.1(A)/2013 a sum of Rs.36,42,000/- was recovered

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -3, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ITC LIMITED

Appeal is allowed to the extent indicated

ITA/125/2018HC Calcutta27 Jun 2024

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI,HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ

property or any of its assets including additions, renovations or refurbishings made hereafter, ELEL shall be entitled to call upon ITC to purchase the Hotel at or the mutually agreed price of Rs.15 lakhs per room irrespective of its use or Rs.75 crores whichever is higher and upon ELEL exercising such option under written intimation to ITC, ITC shall Page

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KOLKATA vs. SAJJADBHAI NURUDDIN NANDARBARWAL

ITAT/129/2021HC Calcutta14 Jun 2022

Bench: :

House, 51, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata- 700 071, and at the place of business of the defendant nos. 1 to 4 at 27/1 Armenian Street, Kolkata- 700 001, both within the aforesaid jurisdiction. 54. The plaintiff states that the defendants are jointly and severally liable to compensate the plaintiff for the entire sum as mentioned in paragraph 55 hereinbelow. The plaintiff

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KOLKATA vs. SUMAN KUMAR

ITAT/128/2021HC Calcutta14 Jun 2022

Bench: :

House, 51, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata- 700 071, and at the place of business of the defendant nos. 1 to 4 at 27/1 Armenian Street, Kolkata- 700 001, both within the aforesaid jurisdiction. 54. The plaintiff states that the defendants are jointly and severally liable to compensate the plaintiff for the entire sum as mentioned in paragraph 55 hereinbelow. The plaintiff

M/S. V2 RETAIL LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10, KOLKATA

The appeal is Allowed to

ITA/30/2021HC Calcutta02 Jul 2024

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

Section 43BSection 4A

Housing Finance is sufficient to bring them within the ambit of the definition of "Public Authority as defined in Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act. 2005.” In view of above we find that the interest expenses claimed by the assessee to the LIC Mutual Fünd are covered under the provisions of section 43B of the Act. Accordingly

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, KOLKATA vs. M/S. CENTURY ENKA LIMITED

ITA/7/2020HC Calcutta27 Feb 2023

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

1) and 340 of the Companies Act and Regulations 7 and 9 of the SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Tradings) Regulations, 2015 were also referred to for the obligations of the promoters, (iii) the Companies Act and the SEBI Regulations do not provide any right to the promoters, except certain limited exemption as contained in Section 3(4) of the Takeover

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, KOLKATA vs. M/S V2 RETAIL LTD.

ITAT/18/2020HC Calcutta28 Jul 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE BIVAS PATTANAYAK

1) and 340 of the Companies Act and Regulations 7 and 9 of the SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Tradings) Regulations, 2015 were also referred to for the obligations of the promoters, (iii) the Companies Act and the SEBI Regulations do not provide any right to the promoters, except certain limited exemption as contained in Section 3(4) of the Takeover

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, KOLKATA vs. M/S. JAGANNATH BANWARILAL TEXOFABS PVT LTD

ITAT/9/2020HC Calcutta27 Jul 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE BIVAS PATTANAYAK

1) and 340 of the Companies Act and Regulations 7 and 9 of the SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Tradings) Regulations, 2015 were also referred to for the obligations of the promoters, (iii) the Companies Act and the SEBI Regulations do not provide any right to the promoters, except certain limited exemption as contained in Section 3(4) of the Takeover

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, KOLKATA vs. M/S. J.J.EXPORTERS LTD.

ITAT/5/2020HC Calcutta26 Jul 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE BIVAS PATTANAYAK

1) and 340 of the Companies Act and Regulations 7 and 9 of the SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Tradings) Regulations, 2015 were also referred to for the obligations of the promoters, (iii) the Companies Act and the SEBI Regulations do not provide any right to the promoters, except certain limited exemption as contained in Section 3(4) of the Takeover

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KOLKATA vs. L D S CITY PROJECTS PVT LTD

ITAT/3/2020HC Calcutta21 Jul 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE BIVAS PATTANAYAK

1) and 340 of the Companies Act and Regulations 7 and 9 of the SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Tradings) Regulations, 2015 were also referred to for the obligations of the promoters, (iii) the Companies Act and the SEBI Regulations do not provide any right to the promoters, except certain limited exemption as contained in Section 3(4) of the Takeover

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, KOLKATA vs. M/S. TCG LIFESCIENCES LTD.

ITAT/10/2020HC Calcutta08 Apr 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

1) and 340 of the Companies Act and Regulations 7 and 9 of the SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Tradings) Regulations, 2015 were also referred to for the obligations of the promoters, (iii) the Companies Act and the SEBI Regulations do not provide any right to the promoters, except certain limited exemption as contained in Section 3(4) of the Takeover

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL-1), KOLKATA vs. M/S. RUNGTA MINES LTD

ITA/13/2020HC Calcutta08 Apr 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

1) and 340 of the Companies Act and Regulations 7 and 9 of the SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Tradings) Regulations, 2015 were also referred to for the obligations of the promoters, (iii) the Companies Act and the SEBI Regulations do not provide any right to the promoters, except certain limited exemption as contained in Section 3(4) of the Takeover

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, KOLKATA vs. M/S THE CALCUTTA TRAMWAYS COMPANY (1978) LTD.

ITAT/20/2020HC Calcutta04 Mar 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

1) and 340 of the Companies Act and Regulations 7 and 9 of the SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Tradings) Regulations, 2015 were also referred to for the obligations of the promoters, (iii) the Companies Act and the SEBI Regulations do not provide any right to the promoters, except certain limited exemption as contained in Section 3(4) of the Takeover

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KOLKATA vs. M/S. HEIGHT INSURANCE SERVICES LTD

ITAT/4/2020HC Calcutta16 Dec 2021

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

1) and 340 of the Companies Act and Regulations 7 and 9 of the SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Tradings) Regulations, 2015 were also referred to for the obligations of the promoters, (iii) the Companies Act and the SEBI Regulations do not provide any right to the promoters, except certain limited exemption as contained in Section 3(4) of the Takeover

PRINCIPAL CIT-14, KOLKATA vs. SHRI VISHWANATH GUPTA

ITA/21/2020HC Calcutta07 Dec 2021

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

1) and 340 of the Companies Act and Regulations 7 and 9 of the SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Tradings) Regulations, 2015 were also referred to for the obligations of the promoters, (iii) the Companies Act and the SEBI Regulations do not provide any right to the promoters, except certain limited exemption as contained in Section 3(4) of the Takeover

RAJESH JAJODIA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 45 KOLKATA AND ORS

ITAT/26/2020HC Calcutta27 Aug 2021

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL, CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING),HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ

1) and 340 of the Companies Act and Regulations 7 and 9 of the SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Tradings) Regulations, 2015 were also referred to for the obligations of the promoters, (iii) the Companies Act and the SEBI Regulations do not provide any right to the promoters, except certain limited exemption as contained in Section 3(4) of the Takeover

M/S SINGHI AND CO vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VIII

ITA/15/2020HC Calcutta27 Apr 2021

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL, CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING),HON'BLE JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA ROY

1) and 340 of the Companies Act and Regulations 7 and 9 of the SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Tradings) Regulations, 2015 were also referred to for the obligations of the promoters, (iii) the Companies Act and the SEBI Regulations do not provide any right to the promoters, except certain limited exemption as contained in Section 3(4) of the Takeover