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.

58 results for “house property”+ Section 73clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,423 Mumbai1,276 Karnataka574 Bangalore478 Chennai254 Jaipur219 Hyderabad203 Kolkata192 Ahmedabad179 Chandigarh134 Cochin73 Telangana72 Indore71 Calcutta58 Raipur49 Pune46 Lucknow38 Nagpur37 Rajkot36 Surat31 Guwahati22 SC19 Cuttack10 Visakhapatnam10 Patna9 Rajasthan8 Agra5 Orissa4 Dehradun4 Amritsar4 Jodhpur3 Ranchi1 Varanasi1 Andhra Pradesh1 Allahabad1 Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 80I8 Section 736 Section 53A5 Section 260A4 Section 343 Section 36(1)3 House Property3 Section 36(2)2 Section 2(47)(v)2 Deduction

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

The appeal is allowed

ITA/168/2010HC Calcutta15 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

Section 24 (a) computed the income from house property at Rs. 9,73,182/-. 14. As per objects in the Memorandum

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , KOL - III, KOL vs. M/S. MEENAKSHI TEA CO. LTD

Appeal is dismissed”

Showing 1–20 of 58 · Page 1 of 3

2

Addition to Income2

ITAT/184/2014

HC Calcutta

08 Jun 2022

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

Section 14ASection 260ASection 73

section 73 were specifically discussed with the A/R. From the details submitted by the A/R, it has emerged that the assessee has no income under the heads ‘interest on 4 securities’, ‘income from other sources’ and ‘income from house property

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -4 , KOLKATA vs. M/S. SHELTER PROJECT LTD

ITAT/60/2020HC Calcutta04 Feb 2022

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

For Appellant: Mr. S. N. Dutta, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv

Section 2(47)Section 2(47)(v)Section 260ASection 53A

73,606/- on a completely misinterpreting Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act as well as Section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? We have heard Mr. S. N. Dutta, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/revenue. The short question which falls for 3 consideration is as to whether the Tribunal has rightly interpreted the provision of Section

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

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

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

Section 73 of the Act though neither the assessee was engaged in the business of granting loans and advances nor the gross total income consists mainly of income which is chargable under the head "interest on securities”, income from house property

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. M/S R. S. DARSHAN SINGH MOTOR CAR FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED

In the result, the appeals are disposed of by way of remand, with a direction to

ITAT/19/2025HC Calcutta28 Jul 2025

Bench: : The Hon'Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj & The Hon’Ble Justice Uday Kumar Date : 11Th November, 2025

Section 26Section 73(1)

housing loan, can, ipso facto, justify treating the Appellant and the other co-owners as a single taxable entity, notwithstanding their clearly demarcated ownership shares, independent income tax assessments under separate PANs, and distinct treatment as co-owners under Section 26 of 2 the Income Tax Act, 1961? b) Whether, in light of the separate ownership, separate PANs, and separate

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

73 of 300 Companies Act. The same concept only arises if the company is accused of wrong doing in which case the single directing mind is sought to be identified in order to fix liability. It is “mens rea” which is as attributed to corporations or the principles of “alter ego” of the company. However, even in cases where “directing

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

73 of 300 Companies Act. The same concept only arises if the company is accused of wrong doing in which case the single directing mind is sought to be identified in order to fix liability. It is “mens rea” which is as attributed to corporations or the principles of “alter ego” of the company. However, even in cases where “directing

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

73 of 300 Companies Act. The same concept only arises if the company is accused of wrong doing in which case the single directing mind is sought to be identified in order to fix liability. It is “mens rea” which is as attributed to corporations or the principles of “alter ego” of the company. However, even in cases where “directing

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

73 of 300 Companies Act. The same concept only arises if the company is accused of wrong doing in which case the single directing mind is sought to be identified in order to fix liability. It is “mens rea” which is as attributed to corporations or the principles of “alter ego” of the company. However, even in cases where “directing

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

73 of 300 Companies Act. The same concept only arises if the company is accused of wrong doing in which case the single directing mind is sought to be identified in order to fix liability. It is “mens rea” which is as attributed to corporations or the principles of “alter ego” of the company. However, even in cases where “directing

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

73 of 300 Companies Act. The same concept only arises if the company is accused of wrong doing in which case the single directing mind is sought to be identified in order to fix liability. It is “mens rea” which is as attributed to corporations or the principles of “alter ego” of the company. However, even in cases where “directing

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

73 of 300 Companies Act. The same concept only arises if the company is accused of wrong doing in which case the single directing mind is sought to be identified in order to fix liability. It is “mens rea” which is as attributed to corporations or the principles of “alter ego” of the company. However, even in cases where “directing

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

73 of 300 Companies Act. The same concept only arises if the company is accused of wrong doing in which case the single directing mind is sought to be identified in order to fix liability. It is “mens rea” which is as attributed to corporations or the principles of “alter ego” of the company. However, even in cases where “directing

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

73 of 300 Companies Act. The same concept only arises if the company is accused of wrong doing in which case the single directing mind is sought to be identified in order to fix liability. It is “mens rea” which is as attributed to corporations or the principles of “alter ego” of the company. However, even in cases where “directing

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

73 of 300 Companies Act. The same concept only arises if the company is accused of wrong doing in which case the single directing mind is sought to be identified in order to fix liability. It is “mens rea” which is as attributed to corporations or the principles of “alter ego” of the company. However, even in cases where “directing

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

73 of 300 Companies Act. The same concept only arises if the company is accused of wrong doing in which case the single directing mind is sought to be identified in order to fix liability. It is “mens rea” which is as attributed to corporations or the principles of “alter ego” of the company. However, even in cases where “directing

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

73 of 300 Companies Act. The same concept only arises if the company is accused of wrong doing in which case the single directing mind is sought to be identified in order to fix liability. It is “mens rea” which is as attributed to corporations or the principles of “alter ego” of the company. However, even in cases where “directing

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

73 of 300 Companies Act. The same concept only arises if the company is accused of wrong doing in which case the single directing mind is sought to be identified in order to fix liability. It is “mens rea” which is as attributed to corporations or the principles of “alter ego” of the company. However, even in cases where “directing

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

73 of 300 Companies Act. The same concept only arises if the company is accused of wrong doing in which case the single directing mind is sought to be identified in order to fix liability. It is “mens rea” which is as attributed to corporations or the principles of “alter ego” of the company. However, even in cases where “directing