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.

55 results for “house property”+ Section 46clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,790Mumbai1,622Bangalore659Karnataka611Chennai407Jaipur347Ahmedabad324Hyderabad275Kolkata242Chandigarh186Cochin136Indore118Telangana112Surat111Pune92Amritsar77Raipur66Rajkot62Calcutta55Lucknow50Nagpur49SC40Cuttack40Visakhapatnam38Guwahati26Agra25Patna19Jodhpur14Dehradun9Rajasthan9Allahabad6Orissa5Kerala5Varanasi3Panaji2H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Jabalpur1T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Andhra Pradesh1ARIJIT PASAYAT C.K. THAKKER1Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 343Section 36(1)3Section 36(2)2

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

Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter Page 5 of 77 referred to as ‘the Act, 1961’) relating to the assessment year 2006-07. 6. In appeal filed by the respondent ITC before the CIT[Appeal], the appeal was allowed and the receipt of the aforesaid amount of Rs.32.42 crores was held to be a capital receipt

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA -2, KOLKATA vs. KALYANPUR CEMENTS LTD.

The appeal stands disposed of accordingly

ITA/13/2015HC Calcutta01 Dec 2021

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam

Section 260ASection 73

Showing 1–20 of 55 · Page 1 of 3

46,000/- pertaining to earlier years in the current year though only current repair is allowable as deduction under the head repair and maintenance? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in law in holding that the case of the assessee falls within the exception to the explanation

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

46 of 300 OCO/18/2020 – Cross Objection in APO No. 98 of 2020 filed by Pradip Kumar Khaitan, being the respondent No. 5. OCO/26/2020 – Cross Objection in APO No. 98 of 2020 filed by Devendra Kumar Mantri and Radha Devi Mohatta being the respondent Nos. 3 & 4 respectively

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

46 of 300 OCO/18/2020 – Cross Objection in APO No. 98 of 2020 filed by Pradip Kumar Khaitan, being the respondent No. 5. OCO/26/2020 – Cross Objection in APO No. 98 of 2020 filed by Devendra Kumar Mantri and Radha Devi Mohatta being the respondent Nos. 3 & 4 respectively

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

46 of 300 OCO/18/2020 – Cross Objection in APO No. 98 of 2020 filed by Pradip Kumar Khaitan, being the respondent No. 5. OCO/26/2020 – Cross Objection in APO No. 98 of 2020 filed by Devendra Kumar Mantri and Radha Devi Mohatta being the respondent Nos. 3 & 4 respectively

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

46 of 300 OCO/18/2020 – Cross Objection in APO No. 98 of 2020 filed by Pradip Kumar Khaitan, being the respondent No. 5. OCO/26/2020 – Cross Objection in APO No. 98 of 2020 filed by Devendra Kumar Mantri and Radha Devi Mohatta being the respondent Nos. 3 & 4 respectively

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

46 of 300 OCO/18/2020 – Cross Objection in APO No. 98 of 2020 filed by Pradip Kumar Khaitan, being the respondent No. 5. OCO/26/2020 – Cross Objection in APO No. 98 of 2020 filed by Devendra Kumar Mantri and Radha Devi Mohatta being the respondent Nos. 3 & 4 respectively

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

46 of 300 OCO/18/2020 – Cross Objection in APO No. 98 of 2020 filed by Pradip Kumar Khaitan, being the respondent No. 5. OCO/26/2020 – Cross Objection in APO No. 98 of 2020 filed by Devendra Kumar Mantri and Radha Devi Mohatta being the respondent Nos. 3 & 4 respectively

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

46 of 300 OCO/18/2020 – Cross Objection in APO No. 98 of 2020 filed by Pradip Kumar Khaitan, being the respondent No. 5. OCO/26/2020 – Cross Objection in APO No. 98 of 2020 filed by Devendra Kumar Mantri and Radha Devi Mohatta being the respondent Nos. 3 & 4 respectively

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

46 of 300 OCO/18/2020 – Cross Objection in APO No. 98 of 2020 filed by Pradip Kumar Khaitan, being the respondent No. 5. OCO/26/2020 – Cross Objection in APO No. 98 of 2020 filed by Devendra Kumar Mantri and Radha Devi Mohatta being the respondent Nos. 3 & 4 respectively

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

46 of 300 OCO/18/2020 – Cross Objection in APO No. 98 of 2020 filed by Pradip Kumar Khaitan, being the respondent No. 5. OCO/26/2020 – Cross Objection in APO No. 98 of 2020 filed by Devendra Kumar Mantri and Radha Devi Mohatta being the respondent Nos. 3 & 4 respectively

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

46 of 300 OCO/18/2020 – Cross Objection in APO No. 98 of 2020 filed by Pradip Kumar Khaitan, being the respondent No. 5. OCO/26/2020 – Cross Objection in APO No. 98 of 2020 filed by Devendra Kumar Mantri and Radha Devi Mohatta being the respondent Nos. 3 & 4 respectively

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

46 of 300 OCO/18/2020 – Cross Objection in APO No. 98 of 2020 filed by Pradip Kumar Khaitan, being the respondent No. 5. OCO/26/2020 – Cross Objection in APO No. 98 of 2020 filed by Devendra Kumar Mantri and Radha Devi Mohatta being the respondent Nos. 3 & 4 respectively

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

46 of 300 OCO/18/2020 – Cross Objection in APO No. 98 of 2020 filed by Pradip Kumar Khaitan, being the respondent No. 5. OCO/26/2020 – Cross Objection in APO No. 98 of 2020 filed by Devendra Kumar Mantri and Radha Devi Mohatta being the respondent Nos. 3 & 4 respectively

TCG LIFE SCIENCES PVT LTD vs. JOINT COMM OF INCOME TAX RANGE59 KOL AND ANR

ITA/26/2020HC Calcutta04 Mar 2021

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

46 of 300 OCO/18/2020 – Cross Objection in APO No. 98 of 2020 filed by Pradip Kumar Khaitan, being the respondent No. 5. OCO/26/2020 – Cross Objection in APO No. 98 of 2020 filed by Devendra Kumar Mantri and Radha Devi Mohatta being the respondent Nos. 3 & 4 respectively

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, KOLKATA vs. M/S KESORAM INDUSTRIES LTD.

ITAT/17/2020HC Calcutta13 Jan 2021

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

46 of 300 OCO/18/2020 – Cross Objection in APO No. 98 of 2020 filed by Pradip Kumar Khaitan, being the respondent No. 5. OCO/26/2020 – Cross Objection in APO No. 98 of 2020 filed by Devendra Kumar Mantri and Radha Devi Mohatta being the respondent Nos. 3 & 4 respectively

SHWETA CHHAWCHHARIA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-12

ITAT/15/2020HC Calcutta21 Dec 2020

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE I. P. MUKERJI,HON'BLE JUSTICE KAUSIK CHANDA

46 of 300 OCO/18/2020 – Cross Objection in APO No. 98 of 2020 filed by Pradip Kumar Khaitan, being the respondent No. 5. OCO/26/2020 – Cross Objection in APO No. 98 of 2020 filed by Devendra Kumar Mantri and Radha Devi Mohatta being the respondent Nos. 3 & 4 respectively

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-2, KOLKATA vs. ELECTROCAST SALES INDIA LTD.

ITAT/11/2020HC Calcutta18 Dec 2020

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE I. P. MUKERJI,HON'BLE JUSTICE KAUSIK CHANDA

46 of 300 OCO/18/2020 – Cross Objection in APO No. 98 of 2020 filed by Pradip Kumar Khaitan, being the respondent No. 5. OCO/26/2020 – Cross Objection in APO No. 98 of 2020 filed by Devendra Kumar Mantri and Radha Devi Mohatta being the respondent Nos. 3 & 4 respectively

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)

46. The two alternative tests applied by the Courts in considering whether a decision was vitiated on account of bias or not, are as under: “(1) Did it appear to the Court that there was a real danger that the Judge had been biased? 2) Would an objective onlooker with knowledge of the material facts have a reasonable suspicion that

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

ITAT/129/2021HC Calcutta14 Jun 2022

Bench: :

properties to defraud any creditor. It is trite law that on the basis of such vague allegation no order or direction for security or injunction or an order of attachment can be passed against the respondents. Mr. Jishnu Chowdhury has painstakingly pointed out that in case of a money suit, the Court permits attachment before judgment as prescribed under Order