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.

184 results for “house property”+ Section 2(47)(v)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,531 Mumbai1,330 Bangalore642 Karnataka589 Chennai331 Jaipur281 Ahmedabad277 Hyderabad233 Kolkata201 Chandigarh184 Cochin146 Indore122 Pune117 Telangana107 Visakhapatnam102 Amritsar63 Raipur62 Rajkot59 Calcutta56 Nagpur45 Cuttack42 Surat41 Lucknow38 SC37 Patna24 Agra24 Guwahati22 Jodhpur9 Rajasthan7 Kerala7 Orissa5 Ranchi3 Allahabad3 Panaji3 Varanasi2 T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1 Jabalpur1 ARIJIT PASAYAT C.K. THAKKER1 Dehradun1 Andhra Pradesh1 ANIL R. DAVE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1

Key Topics

Section 26342 Section 14830 Addition to Income30 Section 43C28 Section 13(3)27 Section 143(3)22 Section 153A16 Section 143(2)14 Section 115B

ITO, W-4, PANCHKULA vs. MRS. SUNITA, PANCHKULA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1359/CHANDI/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Raj BishnoiFor Respondent: Sh. Manjit Singh

Section 2(47)Section 2(47)(ii)Section 2(47)(v)Section 269USection 53A

property in favour of Tata Housing Development Company Limited (THDC) and so 'transfer' for the purposes of section 2(47)(v

Showing 1–20 of 184 · Page 1 of 10

...

14

Unexplained Investment7

ITO, W-4, PANCHKULA vs. SMT. SEEMA DHILLON, PANCHKULA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1358/CHANDI/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Raj BishnoiFor Respondent: Sh. Manjit Singh

Section 2(47)Section 2(47)(ii)Section 2(47)(v)Section 269USection 53A

property in favour of Tata Housing Development Company Limited (THDC) and so 'transfer' for the purposes of section 2(47)(v

ITO, MOHALI vs. SH. DALHIT SINGH, MOHALI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and Cross Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 560/CHANDI/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Jaspal SharmaFor Respondent: Smt. Chandrakanta

Section 2(47)(ii)Section 2(47)(v)Section 2(47)(vi)Section 269USection 45Section 53A

property in favour of Tata Housing Development Company Limited (THDC) and so 'transferror the purposes of section 2(47)(v

SH. JAI RAM,JAGADHARI vs. ITO, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, both the appeal of different assessees are allowed

ITA 366/CHANDI/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit GoelFor Respondent: Smt. Chandrakanta

2(47)(v) read with section 53A of TP Act reached to the conclusion that the year of chargeability of capital gains is the year in which the contract is executed. 6.12 Further, a reference is made to the observations of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ganga Properties Ltd. 77ITR 637 which is reproduced

SH. AMAR SINGH,JAGADHARI vs. ITO, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, both the appeal of different assessees are allowed

ITA 365/CHANDI/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit GoelFor Respondent: Smt. Chandrakanta

2(47)(v) read with section 53A of TP Act reached to the conclusion that the year of chargeability of capital gains is the year in which the contract is executed. 6.12 Further, a reference is made to the observations of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ganga Properties Ltd. 77ITR 637 which is reproduced

M/S CHANDIGARH LAWN TENNIS ASSOCIATION,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

ITA 1382/CHANDI/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year : 2013-14 Chandigarh Lawn Tennis Vs. The Ito (Exemptions), Association, Ward, Chandigarh Sector 10, Chandigarh Pan No. Aaatc4943J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Y.K. Sud, Ca Respondent By : Smt. Chanderkanta, Addl. Cit (On 22.3.2018) & Sh.Yoginder Mittal, Sr. Dr (On 13.7.2018) Date Of Hearing : 22.03.2018 & 13.7.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2018

For Appellant: Sh. Y.K. Sud, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Chanderkanta, Addl. CIT (on 22.3.2018)

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 2(15)

47. By the Finance Act 2015, the first and second provisos also stand substituted, with effect from 1st April 2016, with a new proviso to Section 2(15). The section now is read as under: "2 (15) "charitable purpose" includes relief of the poor, education, medical relief, and the advancement of any other object of general public utility: Provided that

SIKANDER SINGH MALUKA,MOHALI vs. ITO, MOHALI

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

ITA 633/CHANDI/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptathe I.T.O., Vs. Sh.Sikandar Singh Maluka, Ward 5(1), # 1370, Sector 40-B, Chandigarh. Chandigarh Pan: Abzpm7206N & Sh.Sikandar Singh Maluka, Vs. The I.T.O., # 1370, Sector 40-B, Ward 5(2), Chandigarh. Chandigarh Pan: Abzpm7206N

For Appellant: Shri T.N. Singla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manjit Singh

Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)(ii)Section 2(47)(v)Section 269Section 53ASection 54

property in favour of Tata Housing Development Company Limited (THDC) and so 'transfer' for the purposes of section 2(47)(v

SH. PARGAT SINGH,PANIPAT vs. ITO, WARD -1, KAITHAL

ITA 180/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: \nShri Navdeep Monga, AdvocateFor Respondent: \nShri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

47[or by any university or other educational\ninstitution referred to in sub-clause (iiia) or sub-clause (vi) or by any hospital\nor other institution referred to in sub-clause (iiiae) or sub-clause (via)] of\nclause (23C) of section 1048 [or by an electoral trust]].\nExplanation. For the purposes of this sub-clause, \"trust\" includes any other\nlegal

AVTAR SINGH,VILLAGE MANAKPUR THAKUR DASS vs. ITO WARD-1, INCOME TAX OFFICE

ITA 656/CHANDI/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

2 (14)(iii) the Agriculture land, income under section 2(24)\n28A, as under:\n(iii) agricultural land55 in India, not being land situate-\n(a) in any area which is comprised within the jurisdiction of a\nmunicipality55 (whether known as a municipality, municipal\ncorporation, notified area committee, town area committee, town\ncommittee, or by any other name

SH. GURINDER SINGH GREWAL L/H OF PARNEET KAUR GREWAL,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 4(1), CHANDIGARH

ITA 129/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

For Respondent: \nShri Suraj Bhan Nain, Advocate

v. CIT. Kamal in High Court of Punjab and Haryana (2019) 110\ntax.mann.com 116 dated 19.1 1.2018\n•\nMahender Pal Narang v. CBDT. New Delhi in High Court of Punjab and\nHaryana (2020) 423 !TR 13 dated 19.02.2020\n•\nSLP of Mahender Pal Narang v. CBDT, New Delhi dismissed by Hon'ble\nSupreme Court dated 04.03.2021\n•\nBraham Prakash Vs.Income

M/S YOGRAJ CHAUDHARY,YAMUNA NAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-5, YAMUNA NAGAR

ITA 116/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

v) 47[or by any university or other educational\ninstitution referred to in sub-clause (iiiad) or sub-clause (vi) or by any hospital\nor other institution referred to in sub-clause (iiiae) or sub-clause (via)] of\nclause (23C) of section 1048 [or by an electoral trust]].\nExplanation. For the purposes of this sub-clause, \"trust\" includes any other

AMRINDER SINGH KHUBBER,AMBALA vs. ITO, W-5, AMBALA

Accordingly, finding no merit in the appeals, the same are hereby\ndismissed

ITA 1044/CHANDI/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

v. Union of India in High Court of\nPunjab and Haryana (2016) 65 raxmann.com 160/(2016) 237 Taxman 116 (Punjab and\nHaryana) dated 14.01.2014\n•\nSLP of Manjet Singh (HUF) Karta Manjeet Singh v. Union of India dismissed by\nHon'ble Supreme Court dated 18.12.2014\n•\nPuneet Singh v. CIT. Kamal in High Court of Punjab and Haryana

BALVINDER SINGH,FATEHABAD vs. ITO WARD-1, FATEHABAD

ITA 153/CHANDI/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

v. Union of India in High Court of\nPunjab and Haryana (2016) 65 raxmann.com 160/(2016) 237 Taxman 116 (Punjab and\nHaryana) dated 14.01.2014\n•\nSLP of Manjet Singh (HUF) Karta Manjeet Singh v. Union of India dismissed by\nHon'ble Supreme Court dated 18.12.2014\n•\nPuneet Singh v. CIT. Kamal in High Court of Punjab and Haryana

RAJBIR SINGH,VILL. GARHI BANJARA vs. ITO, WARD-3, YAMUNANAGAR

ITA 208/CHANDI/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2017-2018

v. Union of India in High Court of\nPunjab and Haryana (2016) 65 raxmann.com 160/(2016) 237 Taxman 116 (Punjab and\nHaryana) dated 14.01.2014\n•\nSLP of Manjet Singh (HUF) Karta Manjeet Singh v. Union of India dismissed by\nHon'ble Supreme Court dated 18.12.2014\n•\nPuneet Singh v. CIT. Kamal in High Court of Punjab and Haryana

INCOME TAX OFFICER, AMBALA vs. NACHHATAR SINGH, AMBALA CANTT

ITA 613/CHANDI/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: \nShri Suraj Bhan Nain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

v. Union of India in High Court of\nPunjab and Haryana (2016) 65 raxmann.com 160/(2016) 237 Taxman 116 (Punjab and\nHaryana) dated 14.01.2014\n•\nSLP of Manjet Singh (HUF) Karta Manjeet Singh v. Union of India dismissed by\nHon'ble Supreme Court dated 18.12.2014\n•\nPuneet Singh v. CIT. Kamal in High Court of Punjab and Haryana

LABH SINGH,PANCHKULA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD NO 2,, PANCHKULA

ITA 725/CHANDI/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: \nShri Suraj Bhan Nain, AdvocateFor Respondent: \nShri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

v. Union of India in High Court of\nPunjab and Haryana (2016) 65 raxmann.com 160/(2016) 237 Taxman 116 (Punjab and\nHaryana) dated 14.01.2014\n•\nSLP of Manjet Singh (HUF) Karta Manjeet Singh v. Union of India dismissed by\nHon'ble Supreme Court dated 18.12.2014\n•\nPuneet Singh v. CIT. Kamal in High Court of Punjab and Haryana

AMRINDER SINGH KHUBBER,AMBALA vs. ITO, W-5, AMBALA

ITA 1043/CHANDI/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

v. Union of India in High Court of\nPunjab and Haryana (2016) 65 raxmann.com 160/(2016) 237 Taxman 116 (Punjab and\nHaryana) dated 14.01.2014\nSLP of Manjet Singh (HUF) Karta Manjeet Singh v. Union of India dismissed by\nHon'ble Supreme Court dated 18.12.2014\nPuneet Singh v. CIT. Kamal in High Court of Punjab and Haryana (2019) 110\ntax.mann.com

SUSHMA,HARYANA vs. ITO, WARD - 4, YAMUNA NAGAR, YAMUNA NAGAR

ITA 779/CHANDI/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: \nShri Suraj Bhan Nain, AdvocateFor Respondent: \nShri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

v. Union of India in High Court of\nPunjab and Haryana (2016) 65 raxmann.com 160/(2016) 237 Taxman 116 (Punjab and\nHaryana) dated 14.01.2014\n•\nSLP of Manjet Singh (HUF) Karta Manjeet Singh v. Union of India dismissed by\nHon'ble Supreme Court dated 18.12.2014\n•\nPuneet Singh v. CIT. Kamal in High Court of Punjab and Haryana

SH. AMRIK SINGH,PANCHKULA vs. ITO, WARD-2, PANCHKULA

ITA 219/CHANDI/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

For Respondent: \nShri Suraj Bhan Nain, Advocate

v. Union of India in High Court of\nPunjab and Haryana (2016) 65 raxmann.com 160/(2016) 237 Taxman 116 (Punjab and\nHaryana) dated 14.01.2014\n•\nSLP of Manjet Singh (HUF) Karta Manjeet Singh v. Union of India dismissed by\nHon'ble Supreme Court dated 18.12.2014\n•\nPuneet Singh v. CIT. Kamal in High Court of Punjab and Haryana

JAGPAL SINGH,CHANDIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(5), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

ITA 1184/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: \nShri Suraj Bhan Nain, AdvocateFor Respondent: \nShri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

v. Union of India in High Court of\nPunjab and Haryana (2016) 65 raxmann.com 160/(2016) 237 Taxman 116 (Punjab and\nHaryana) dated 14.01.2014\n•\nSLP of Manjet Singh (HUF) Karta Manjeet Singh v. Union of India dismissed by\nHon'ble Supreme Court dated 18.12.2014\n•\nPuneet Singh v. CIT. Kamal in High Court of Punjab and Haryana