Search: house property | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

56 results for “house property”+ Section 54clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,939 Mumbai1,767 Bangalore750 Karnataka583 Chennai493 Jaipur270 Kolkata244 Ahmedabad239 Hyderabad235 Chandigarh165 Surat109 Telangana107 Pune100 Indore94 Cochin78 Raipur61 Calcutta56 Lucknow49 Visakhapatnam39 Cuttack37 Rajkot35 SC34 Nagpur32 Amritsar31 Patna28 Agra27 Guwahati25 Rajasthan12 Jodhpur12 Kerala7 Allahabad6 Varanasi6 Ranchi4 Orissa4 Jabalpur3 Punjab & Haryana2 Dehradun2 Andhra Pradesh1 ANIL R. DAVE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1 Gauhati1 Himachal Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 546 Section 1385 Section 54F5 Section 343 Section 36(1)3 Section 36(2)2 Section 2632

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATA vs. ARUNAVA BHATTACHARJEE

ITAT/281/2023HC Calcutta15 Jan 2024

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

Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 263Section 54Section 54F

house property and the same is violating the provisions as laid down under Section 54 of the Act”. We have

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

Showing 1–20 of 56 · Page 1 of 3

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

Housing Society Ltd., St. John Baptist Road, Bandra (West), Mumbai-400 050 (collectively the "Flats" and individually the "Flat"); 3) Various disputes have arisen between the Parties in relation to / concerning the Hotel and/or the Operating Licence in respect of which Suit No. 3885 of 1993, Suit No.3886 of 1993, Suit No.1877 of 1995 and Suit

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

54 of 300 Radha Devi Mohatta, being the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 respectively. 3.3 OCO/9/2020 Cross Objection in A.P.O No. 96 of 2020 filed by Arvind Kumar Newar and Nand Gopal Khaitan, being the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. 4. APO NO. 98 OF 2020 Appeal filed by Aditya Vikram Lodha 4.1 OCO/10/2020 Cross Objection in A.P.O

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

54 of 300 Radha Devi Mohatta, being the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 respectively. 3.3 OCO/9/2020 Cross Objection in A.P.O No. 96 of 2020 filed by Arvind Kumar Newar and Nand Gopal Khaitan, being the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. 4. APO NO. 98 OF 2020 Appeal filed by Aditya Vikram Lodha 4.1 OCO/10/2020 Cross Objection in A.P.O

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

54 of 300 Radha Devi Mohatta, being the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 respectively. 3.3 OCO/9/2020 Cross Objection in A.P.O No. 96 of 2020 filed by Arvind Kumar Newar and Nand Gopal Khaitan, being the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. 4. APO NO. 98 OF 2020 Appeal filed by Aditya Vikram Lodha 4.1 OCO/10/2020 Cross Objection in A.P.O

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

54 of 300 Radha Devi Mohatta, being the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 respectively. 3.3 OCO/9/2020 Cross Objection in A.P.O No. 96 of 2020 filed by Arvind Kumar Newar and Nand Gopal Khaitan, being the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. 4. APO NO. 98 OF 2020 Appeal filed by Aditya Vikram Lodha 4.1 OCO/10/2020 Cross Objection in A.P.O

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

54 of 300 Radha Devi Mohatta, being the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 respectively. 3.3 OCO/9/2020 Cross Objection in A.P.O No. 96 of 2020 filed by Arvind Kumar Newar and Nand Gopal Khaitan, being the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. 4. APO NO. 98 OF 2020 Appeal filed by Aditya Vikram Lodha 4.1 OCO/10/2020 Cross Objection in A.P.O

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

54 of 300 Radha Devi Mohatta, being the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 respectively. 3.3 OCO/9/2020 Cross Objection in A.P.O No. 96 of 2020 filed by Arvind Kumar Newar and Nand Gopal Khaitan, being the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. 4. APO NO. 98 OF 2020 Appeal filed by Aditya Vikram Lodha 4.1 OCO/10/2020 Cross Objection in A.P.O

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

54 of 300 Radha Devi Mohatta, being the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 respectively. 3.3 OCO/9/2020 Cross Objection in A.P.O No. 96 of 2020 filed by Arvind Kumar Newar and Nand Gopal Khaitan, being the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. 4. APO NO. 98 OF 2020 Appeal filed by Aditya Vikram Lodha 4.1 OCO/10/2020 Cross Objection in A.P.O

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

54 of 300 Radha Devi Mohatta, being the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 respectively. 3.3 OCO/9/2020 Cross Objection in A.P.O No. 96 of 2020 filed by Arvind Kumar Newar and Nand Gopal Khaitan, being the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. 4. APO NO. 98 OF 2020 Appeal filed by Aditya Vikram Lodha 4.1 OCO/10/2020 Cross Objection in A.P.O

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

54 of 300 Radha Devi Mohatta, being the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 respectively. 3.3 OCO/9/2020 Cross Objection in A.P.O No. 96 of 2020 filed by Arvind Kumar Newar and Nand Gopal Khaitan, being the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. 4. APO NO. 98 OF 2020 Appeal filed by Aditya Vikram Lodha 4.1 OCO/10/2020 Cross Objection in A.P.O

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

54 of 300 Radha Devi Mohatta, being the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 respectively. 3.3 OCO/9/2020 Cross Objection in A.P.O No. 96 of 2020 filed by Arvind Kumar Newar and Nand Gopal Khaitan, being the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. 4. APO NO. 98 OF 2020 Appeal filed by Aditya Vikram Lodha 4.1 OCO/10/2020 Cross Objection in A.P.O

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

54 of 300 Radha Devi Mohatta, being the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 respectively. 3.3 OCO/9/2020 Cross Objection in A.P.O No. 96 of 2020 filed by Arvind Kumar Newar and Nand Gopal Khaitan, being the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. 4. APO NO. 98 OF 2020 Appeal filed by Aditya Vikram Lodha 4.1 OCO/10/2020 Cross Objection in A.P.O

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

54 of 300 Radha Devi Mohatta, being the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 respectively. 3.3 OCO/9/2020 Cross Objection in A.P.O No. 96 of 2020 filed by Arvind Kumar Newar and Nand Gopal Khaitan, being the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. 4. APO NO. 98 OF 2020 Appeal filed by Aditya Vikram Lodha 4.1 OCO/10/2020 Cross Objection in A.P.O

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

54 of 300 Radha Devi Mohatta, being the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 respectively. 3.3 OCO/9/2020 Cross Objection in A.P.O No. 96 of 2020 filed by Arvind Kumar Newar and Nand Gopal Khaitan, being the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. 4. APO NO. 98 OF 2020 Appeal filed by Aditya Vikram Lodha 4.1 OCO/10/2020 Cross Objection in A.P.O

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

54 of 300 Radha Devi Mohatta, being the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 respectively. 3.3 OCO/9/2020 Cross Objection in A.P.O No. 96 of 2020 filed by Arvind Kumar Newar and Nand Gopal Khaitan, being the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. 4. APO NO. 98 OF 2020 Appeal filed by Aditya Vikram Lodha 4.1 OCO/10/2020 Cross Objection in A.P.O

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

54 of 300 Radha Devi Mohatta, being the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 respectively. 3.3 OCO/9/2020 Cross Objection in A.P.O No. 96 of 2020 filed by Arvind Kumar Newar and Nand Gopal Khaitan, being the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. 4. APO NO. 98 OF 2020 Appeal filed by Aditya Vikram Lodha 4.1 OCO/10/2020 Cross Objection in A.P.O

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

54 of 300 Radha Devi Mohatta, being the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 respectively. 3.3 OCO/9/2020 Cross Objection in A.P.O No. 96 of 2020 filed by Arvind Kumar Newar and Nand Gopal Khaitan, being the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. 4. APO NO. 98 OF 2020 Appeal filed by Aditya Vikram Lodha 4.1 OCO/10/2020 Cross Objection in A.P.O

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS) KOLKATA vs. M/S ITD-ITD CEM JV (CONSORTIUM OF ITD-ITD CEMENTATION)

ITAT/195/2018HC Calcutta03 Aug 2022

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

Section 138Section 151Section 313

54 on the issue of presumption under Section 139 of the N.I Act and came to a finding that the respondent No.2 and 3 sufficiently rebutted the presumption of existence of any legally enforceable debt or liability as provided under Section 139 of the N.I Act, 1881. 7. Thus, the learned Magistrate on the principle of preponderance of probabilities recorded

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)

54. Given that the definition of “affiliate”, under section 12 of the Act, encompasses all the companies including the parent company, this Court is hesitant to hold that M/s. SSSMIL is an affiliate of M/s. C&E Ltd. of the Bhaiya group, in the Arbitration. Mr. Ghosh’s argument, that an individual i.e. Bulaki Das Bhaiya in control and management