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.

7 results for “house property”+ Section 80P(4)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai71Bangalore28Delhi22Kolkata17Jaipur17Indore8Pune7Chandigarh7Cochin5Visakhapatnam3Rajkot2Ahmedabad2Chennai2Hyderabad2SC2Surat2Nagpur1

Key Topics

Section 80P8Deduction6House Property5Section 80P(2)(a)4Section 244Section 104Business Income4Addition to Income4Section 143(2)

THE PUNJAB STATE FEDERATION OF COOPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETIES LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 797/CHANDI/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Atul Goyal, C.A (Virtual Mode)For Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 57oSection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

4. The assessee, Punjab State Co-operative House Building Federation Ltd., filed its return of income for AY 2012-13 declaring taxable income of Rs.26,43,040/- after claiming deduction under Chapter VI-A, mainly section 80P, amounting to Rs.8,66,76,909. The assessee is a co-operative society engaged in providing loans to member housing societies and developing

3
Capital Gains3
Long Term Capital Gains3
Section 57o2

THE PUNJAB STATE FEDERATION OF COOPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETIES LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 1308/CHANDI/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: the appeal is finally heard.

For Appellant: Shri Atul Goyal, C.A (Virtual Mode)For Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 57oSection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

4. The assessee, Punjab State Co-operative House Building Federation Ltd., filed its return of income for AY 2012-13 declaring taxable income of Rs.26,43,040/- after claiming deduction under Chapter VI-A, mainly section 80P, amounting to Rs.8,66,76,909. The assessee is a co-operative society engaged in providing loans to member housing societies and developing

SHRI BALBIR SINGH VERMA,SHIMLA vs. PR.CIT, SHIMLA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 314/CHANDI/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR (Virtual)
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)

house property and salary as a sitting MLA from HP Vidhan Sabha. Key issues examined included deductions claimed under Section 24(b) for interest on borrowed capital, motor car expenses, loans and advances, unsecured loans, and additional income of Rs. 1,25,00,000/- declared post a survey under Section 133A conducted on 04.03.2015. 3.2 Regarding Interest Claimed under Section

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
Section 143(2)

house property' and not `business income'. Thus it can be seen that once the conditions of section 22 are satisfied, the income has to be classified under that head and other matters, even if having some bearing, go out of consideration. Similarly an income to come with the ambit of Chapter IV-E, it is fundamental that it should

PUNJAB STATE COOP. BANK LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CL-2(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result the impugned order of Ld

ITA 293/CHANDI/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Atul Goyal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 253Section 80P(2)(a)

80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, prior to the amendment in the said section and is a regular assessee with the Income Tax Department through the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2(1) Chandigarh. 3. That the assessee society filed its return for the year under consideration on 30th September 2013 declaring therein

PUNJAB STATE COOP. BANK LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CL-2(1), CHANDIGARH

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

ITA 294/CHANDI/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Paresh M. Joshiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.294/Chd/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Atul Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Shri DharamVir, JCIT Sr. DR
Section 143Section 154Section 250Section 253Section 80P

80P (2) (a) (i) o f the Income Tax Act prior to the amendment in the said section and isa regular assessee with the Income tax department through the Assistant Commissioner o f Income Tax Circle 2 (I), Chandigarh. The assessee society has been regularly assessed by the Assistant Commissioner o f Income Tax Circle 2 (I), Chandigarh

M/S PUNJAB STATE COOPERATIVE FED. OF,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT,, CHANDIGARH

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 429/CHANDI/2009[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Apr 2025AY 2002-03

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Atul Goyal (CA ) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 10Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

house, acquiring immovable properties etc. 2. Facts leading to present litigation are that the assessee declared profit of Rs.16.66 Crores and it claimed exempt income for Bathinda Project u/s 10(20A) for Rs.2.34 Crores. Against remaining amount of Rs.14.31 Crores, the assessee claimed deduction u/s 80P for Rs.14.20 Crores. The Ld. AO denied exemption u/s 10(20A) since the cooperative