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.

2 results for “house property”+ Section 80G(5)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai136Delhi50Bangalore45Kolkata25Pune22Ahmedabad11Jaipur11Chennai10Lucknow6Surat5Rajkot3Hyderabad2Indore2Cochin2Chandigarh2SC2Jodhpur1Nagpur1Dehradun1

Key Topics

Section 80G4Section 53Section 2532Section 32Section 2492Charitable Trust2Exemption2Limitation/Time-bar2

SHRI ISHWAR HARI CHARITABLE TRUST,SANGRUR vs. CIT EXEMPTIONS, CHANDIGARH

ITA 475/CHANDI/2023[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Mar 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri T.N.Singla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Chandrajit Singh, CIT DR
Section 12ASection 249Section 253Section 3Section 5Section 80G

80G. This fact came to the notice when Tax Consultant was preparing the appeal for hearing. 3. Sub-section 5 of Section 253 contemplates that the Tribunal may admit an appeal or permit filing of memorandum of cross- objections after expiry of relevant period, if it is satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for not presenting it within that

SHRI ISHWAR HARI CHARITABLE TRUST,SNAGRUR vs. CIT EXEMPTIONS, CHANDIGARH

ITA 719/CHANDI/2022[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Mar 2025AY 2022-23
For Appellant: Shri T.N.Singla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Chandrajit Singh, CIT DR
Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5Section 80G

80G. This fact came to the notice when Tax Consultant\nwas preparing the appeal for hearing.\n3. Sub-section 5 of Section 253 contemplates that the\nTribunal may admit an appeal or permit filing of memorandum\nof cross- objections after expiry of relevant period, if it is\nsatisfied that there was a sufficient cause for not presenting it\nwithin that