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.

215 results for “house property”+ Business Incomeclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,771 Delhi1,404 Jaipur427 Bangalore398 Hyderabad387 Chennai373 Ahmedabad263 Pune222 Chandigarh215 Kolkata203 Cochin159 Indore142 Rajkot95 Raipur93 Surat74 Nagpur69 Visakhapatnam67 Lucknow57 Amritsar51 Patna49 Agra43 Jodhpur40 Cuttack34 Guwahati30 Dehradun16 Allahabad12 Varanasi11 Panaji8 Jabalpur5 Ranchi5

Key Topics

Section 26375 Addition to Income54 Section 153A49 Section 143(3)41 Section 115B27 Section 6927 Section 14724 Section 143(2)22 Section 6820

MRS. KIRAN BALA,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 254/CHANDI/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Mar 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr.DR

Section 115BSection 133ASection 69Section 69ASection 69B

income from house property’, (iii) ‘profits and gains from business or profession’, (iv) ‘capital gains’ and (v) ‘income from other

Showing 1–20 of 215 · Page 1 of 11

...

Survey u/s 133A16

Business Income15

M/S VEER ENTERPRISES,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 255/CHANDI/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jan 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharamvir, JCIT, Sr.DR

Section 115BSection 133ASection 69Section 69ASection 69B

income from house property’, (iii) ‘profits and gains from business or profession’, (iv) ‘capital gains’ and (v) ‘income from other

DCIT, CIRCLE, PATIALA vs. M/S PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD., PATIALA

In the result, ground no. 1 & 3 of the Revenue’s appeal is allowed and ground no

ITA 737/CHANDI/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Saldi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR

property', and not `Profits and gains of business or profession' for the reason that the nature of income which results from the purchase of building falls under the head of rental income. It is seen that even in the instant case the assessee earned income from house

SH. KRISHAN KUMAR,KHANNA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 175/CHANDI/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jan 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sharma, JCIT, Sr.DR

Section 115BSection 133ASection 139Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69Section 69ASection 69BSection 69C

income from house property’, (iii) ‘profits and gains from business or profession’, (iv) ‘capital gains’ and (v) ‘income from other

M/S JASHAN FINLEASE LTD.,KHANNA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 132/CHANDI/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Mar 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(2)Section 68Section 69

income from house property’, (iii) ‘profits and gains from business or profession’, (iv) ‘capital gains’ and (v) ‘income from other

SANJEEV KUMAR GOYAL,FATEHABAD vs. DCIT, CC-2, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

ITA 80/CHANDI/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: This Hon’Ble Tribunal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 As Amended From Time To Time. 2. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 20/01/2023 In Appeal No. 10853/2018-19/It/Cit(A)-5/Ldh/2021-22 For The A.Y. 2019-20 Under Section 250(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Which Was Dismissed. Therefore The Present Second Appeal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Before Us Against The Aforesaid Order Dt. 20/01/2023 Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The Impugned Order.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Rishaba Marwaha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Dharamvir, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 250(6)Section 253Section 68

business. (ii) Fakir Mohmed Haji HasanVs. CIT [2001] 247 ITR 290 in the Gujarat High Court Wherein it is stated that the "deemed income" of the nature covered under the scheme of sections 69, 69A, 69B and 69C being treated separately, because such deemed income is not income from salary, house property

RAJIV KUMAR GOYAL,DHURI vs. DCIT, CC-2, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 79/CHANDI/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: This Hon’Ble Tribunal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 As Amended From Time To Time. 2. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dated 03/02/2023 In Appeal No. 10850/2018-19/It/Cit(A)-5/Ldh/2021-22 For A.Y. 2019-20 Under Section 250(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Which Was Dismissed. Therefore The Present Second Appeal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Before Us Against The Aforesaid Order Dt. 03/02/2023 Which Is Hereiafter Referred To As The Impugned Order. Factual Matrix 3. The Assessee Had For The Relevant Year I.E; A.Y. 2019-20 Was Also Engaged In The Same Business I.E; Manufacturing Of Pvc Pipes & Had Filed

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Rishaba Marwaha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Dharamvir, JCIT, Sr. D.R

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 250(6)Section 253

business. ii) Fakir Mohmed Haji HasanVs. CIT [2001] 247 ITR 290 in the Gujarat High Court Wherein it is stated that the "deemed income" of the nature covered under the scheme of sections 69, 69A, 69B and 69C being treated separately, because such deemed income is not income from salary, house property

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), LUDHIANA vs. M/S SHEETAL INDUSTRIES , KHANNA

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 420/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Kapoor, Advocate and Shri Virsain AggarwalFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR

Section 115BSection 132Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 153CSection 69Section 69A

income from house property’, (iii) ‘profits and gains from business or profession’, (iv) ‘capital gains’ and (v) ‘income from other

M/S SATWANT AGRO ENGINEERS,BHAWANIGARH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PATIALA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 753/CHANDI/2022[AY 2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 May 2024

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharamvir, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69Section 69A

income from salary, house property, profits and gains of business or profession, or capital gains, nor is it income from

M/S AMARJIT & SONS,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-2, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 203/CHANDI/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Have Not Been Appreciated.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 133ASection 69Section 69B

income from house property’, (iii) ‘profits and gains from business or profession’, (iv) ‘capital gains’ and (v) ‘income from other

SH. GURINDER MAKKAR,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-3, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

ITA 20/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 32Section 37Section 40A(3)Section 43(1)Section 68Section 69

income from house property’, (iii) ‘profits and gains from business or profession’, (iv) ‘capital gains’ and (v) ‘income from other

M/S A.P. KNIT FAB,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT CC-3, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 732/CHANDI/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Have Not Been Appreciated. 4. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Failed To Appreciate That During The Course Of Survey, No Other Income Was Noticed By The Department And, As Such, Taxing The Amount Offered As Deemed Income, Is Against The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 5. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Also Failed To Appreciate That At The Time Of Survey, It Was Agreed That The Applicant Shall Pay The Taxes On The Amount Offered

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 133ASection 69Section 69B

income from house property’, (iii) ‘profits and gains from business or profession’, (iv) ‘capital gains’ and (v) ‘income from other

RAV SHARAN SINGH,PATIALA vs. ACIT, C.C., PATIALA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 416/CHANDI/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Rishabh Marwah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 69

income from house property’, (iii) ‘profits and gains from business or profession’, (iv) ‘capital gains’ and (v) ‘income from other

JANTA LAND PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MOHALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(1) CHANDIGARH , MOHALI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 907/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 907/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 बनाम M/S Janta Land Promoters Pvt.Ltd. The Ito, Sco 39-42, Sector 82, Ward 6(1), Vs Mohali. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan /Tan No: Aabcj3450D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Pankaj Bhalla, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Cit, Sr.Dr तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 07.05.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.07.2025

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Bhalla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 253(5)Section 28Section 36(1)(va)

property and sell it or to construct and let out the same, then that would be the business and the business stocks, which may include movable and immovable, would be taken to be stock in trade and any income derived from such stocks cannot be termed as income from house

ROPAR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE UNION LIMITED,MOHALI vs. PCIT, CHANDIGAR-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 360/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AAKASH DEEPJAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri M.R.Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum, CIT, DR

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 23Section 24Section 263Section 269USection 53A

income from House Property, Business Income and Income from Other- Sources. The assessee had also shown an agricultural income. 3.2 Further

TARLOCHAN SINGH ,BHAWANIGARH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PATIALA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 754/CHANDI/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Jan 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 133Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 14jSection 68Section 69

income from house property’, (iii) ‘profits and gains from business or profession’, (iv) ‘capital gains’ and (v) ‘income from other

M/S PUNJAB TOURISM DEVELOPMENET CORPORATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 140/CHANDI/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ao)

For Appellant: Sh.Tejmohan Singh, Adv. and Sh. Vineet Khurana, C. AFor Respondent: Sh.Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. D. R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 253

properties of the corporation were either sold or transferred to the Department of Tourism, Government of Punjab. In the A.Y. 2015-16 there is a payable demand of Rs. 15,11,120/- 50% of legitimate expenses of the corporation which has been made which is extremely unreasonable and uncalled for. 21.2 It was interalia contended that disallowance

M/S PUNJAB TOURISM DEVELOPMENET CORPORATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 141/CHANDI/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ao)

For Appellant: Sh.Tejmohan Singh, Adv. and Sh. Vineet Khurana, C. AFor Respondent: Sh.Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. D. R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 253

properties of the corporation were either sold or transferred to the Department of Tourism, Government of Punjab. In the A.Y. 2015-16 there is a payable demand of Rs. 15,11,120/- 50% of legitimate expenses of the corporation which has been made which is extremely unreasonable and uncalled for. 21.2 It was interalia contended that disallowance

M/S PUNJAB TOURISM DEVELOPMENET CORPORATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 142/CHANDI/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ao)

For Appellant: Sh.Tejmohan Singh, Adv. and Sh. Vineet Khurana, C. AFor Respondent: Sh.Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. D. R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 253

properties of the corporation were either sold or transferred to the Department of Tourism, Government of Punjab. In the A.Y. 2015-16 there is a payable demand of Rs. 15,11,120/- 50% of legitimate expenses of the corporation which has been made which is extremely unreasonable and uncalled for. 21.2 It was interalia contended that disallowance

M/S PUNJAB TOURISM DEVELOPMENET CORPORATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 139/CHANDI/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ao)

For Appellant: Sh.Tejmohan Singh, Adv. and Sh. Vineet Khurana, C. AFor Respondent: Sh.Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. D. R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 253

properties of the corporation were either sold or transferred to the Department of Tourism, Government of Punjab. In the A.Y. 2015-16 there is a payable demand of Rs. 15,11,120/- 50% of legitimate expenses of the corporation which has been made which is extremely unreasonable and uncalled for. 21.2 It was interalia contended that disallowance