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.

35 results for “house property”+ Rectification u/s 154clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai130Delhi102Bangalore52Chennai35Jaipur26Chandigarh18Lucknow11Hyderabad11Kolkata9Nagpur8Pune7Visakhapatnam7Indore6Rajkot6Agra5Ahmedabad5Panaji5Patna5Surat5Cochin4Jodhpur4Cuttack3Raipur2Allahabad2SC1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)27Section 14724Section 56(2)(x)24Addition to Income21Section 13218Section 14218Rectification u/s 15418Section 26317Section 15417Section 153A

M/S. RMZ INFINITY (CHENNAI) PVT. LTD.,KANCHIPURAM vs. PCIT-4, , CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 511/CHNY/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jun 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.511/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2009-10 M/S.Rmz Infinity(Chennai) Pvt. Ltd, The Principal Commissioner Of No.110, Mount Poonamallee Road, Income Tax-4, Porur, Porur S.O, Circle-1, Ltu, Kanchipuram Dist, Chennai Tamil Nadu-600 116. [Pan: Aaacd2287R]

For Appellant: Shri B.Ramakrishnan, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms.E.Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 263

rectification u/s 154 towards following issues:- i) That in the order u/s.143(1) capital gains has been calculated while omitting to consider cost of acquisition of Rs.2,55,70,923/-. ii) TDS claim of Rs.3,29,478/- has not been considered qua M/s.Hewlatt Packard Global Soft Pvt Ltd iii) The assessee is primarily earning lease rental income under the head

Showing 1–20 of 35 · Page 1 of 2

16
Natural Justice12
Search & Seizure10

M/S. CHENNAI BUSINESS TOWER PVT. LTD.,KANCHIPURAM vs. PCIT-4, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1570/CHNY/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1570/Chny/2025, धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 M/S. Chennai Business Tower Pcit-4, Private Limited (Formerly Known Vs Chennai. As Rmz Infinity (Chennai) Pvt. . Ltd), 110, Mount Poonamallee Road, Porur, Porur S.O. Kanchipuram – 600 116. [Pan:Aaacd-2287-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, Fca. प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. R. Raghupathy, Addl. Cit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12.09.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am:

For Appellant: Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri. R. Raghupathy, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 24Section 263

House Property' or under the head 'Business Income', it is required of the AO to carefully examine the constitution documents of the assessee, lease agreements etc. which can be done only under regular scrutiny examination. However, the AO has passed rectification order without any such examination and in any case such examination cannot be undertaken in proceedings u/s 154

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 2577/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2018-19
Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

u/s 132(4) of the Act, the appellant had offered Rs.1,50,000/- per year from A.Y. 2014-15 to 2018-19 as additional income in his individual hands. Accordingly, the AO had added Rs.1,50,000/- as income from other sources...\n\n6.4.3. Further, it is seen that the appellant had filed further appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

ITA 2570/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2011-12
Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

u/s 69A of the Act. In the course of appeal proceedings, the\nappellant had submitted the bank statements to show that there are\nwithdrawals from his bank account to claim the same as source for the\ncash found and seized at the time of search. However, the AO had verified\nthe claim of the appellant in appeal proceedings and found

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 2575/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

u/s. 234A & 234B has to be re-considered as per the Act. From the above it is clear that there has been mistake apparent on record which need to be rectified in accordance to the provisions of Section 154 of the Act. I further request your Ld. Authority to provide an opportunity to be heard before passing an order u/s.154

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 2576/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

u/s. 234A & 234B has to be re-considered as per the Act. From the above it is clear that there has been mistake apparent on record which need to be rectified in accordance to the provisions of Section 154 of the Act. I further request your Ld. Authority to provide an opportunity to be heard before passing an order u/s.154

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 2574/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

u/s. 234A & 234B has to be re-considered as per the Act. From the above it is clear that there has been mistake apparent on record which need to be rectified in accordance to the provisions of Section 154 of the Act. I further request your Ld. Authority to provide an opportunity to be heard before passing an order u/s.154

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 2571/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

u/s. 234A & 234B has to be re-considered as per the Act. From the above it is clear that there has been mistake apparent on record which need to be rectified in accordance to the provisions of Section 154 of the Act. I further request your Ld. Authority to provide an opportunity to be heard before passing an order u/s.154

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 2573/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

u/s. 234A & 234B has to be re-considered as per the Act. From the above it is clear that there has been mistake apparent on record which need to be rectified in accordance to the provisions of Section 154 of the Act. I further request your Ld. Authority to provide an opportunity to be heard before passing an order u/s.154

MRS. BABU SHEENY,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-6(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3206/CHNY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Feb 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri George George K, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3206/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22 Mrs. Babu Sheeny, The Income Tax Officer, New No. 719, Old No. 666, V. Non Corporate Ward -6(1), T.H. Road, Thiruvottiyur, Chennai – 600 034. Chennai – 600 019. [Pan: Aawps-4485-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Mr. K. Ravi, Ca अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gauthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.02.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.02.2025

For Respondent: Ms. Gauthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 143(1)(a)Section 154

rectification application u/s. 154 of the Act and had requested to reprocess the return of income stating that these income have been offered under the head income from house property

SANJAY CHAWLA,SALEM vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SALEM., SALEM

In the result, appeals filed by both assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 395/CHNY/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha.G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.392 & 393/Chny/2021 &

For Respondent: Mr.S.R.Karuppusamy, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263

Rectification petition goes to the root of the matter as non-consideration of the submissions relating to the assumption of jurisdiction, amounts to mistake apparent on the face of record. 6. The order passed by the Assessing officer which was the subject matter of the main appeal before the CIT(A) was clearly barred by limitation in as much

SANJAY CHAWLA,SALEM vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SALEM., SALEM

In the result, appeals filed by both assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 396/CHNY/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha.G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.392 & 393/Chny/2021 &

For Respondent: Mr.S.R.Karuppusamy, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263

Rectification petition goes to the root of the matter as non-consideration of the submissions relating to the assumption of jurisdiction, amounts to mistake apparent on the face of record. 6. The order passed by the Assessing officer which was the subject matter of the main appeal before the CIT(A) was clearly barred by limitation in as much

SANJAY CHAWLA,SALEM vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE, SALEM

In the result, appeals filed by both assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 371/CHNY/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha.G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.392 & 393/Chny/2021 &

For Respondent: Mr.S.R.Karuppusamy, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263

Rectification petition goes to the root of the matter as non-consideration of the submissions relating to the assumption of jurisdiction, amounts to mistake apparent on the face of record. 6. The order passed by the Assessing officer which was the subject matter of the main appeal before the CIT(A) was clearly barred by limitation in as much

SANJAY CHAWLA,SALEM vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE, SALEM

In the result, appeals filed by both assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 372/CHNY/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha.G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.392 & 393/Chny/2021 &

For Respondent: Mr.S.R.Karuppusamy, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263

Rectification petition goes to the root of the matter as non-consideration of the submissions relating to the assumption of jurisdiction, amounts to mistake apparent on the face of record. 6. The order passed by the Assessing officer which was the subject matter of the main appeal before the CIT(A) was clearly barred by limitation in as much

SANJAY CHAWLA,SALEM vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE, SALEM

In the result, appeals filed by both assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 373/CHNY/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha.G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.392 & 393/Chny/2021 &

For Respondent: Mr.S.R.Karuppusamy, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263

Rectification petition goes to the root of the matter as non-consideration of the submissions relating to the assumption of jurisdiction, amounts to mistake apparent on the face of record. 6. The order passed by the Assessing officer which was the subject matter of the main appeal before the CIT(A) was clearly barred by limitation in as much

REKHA CHAWLA,SALEM vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SALEM, SALEM

In the result, appeals filed by both assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 374/CHNY/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha.G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.392 & 393/Chny/2021 &

For Respondent: Mr.S.R.Karuppusamy, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263

Rectification petition goes to the root of the matter as non-consideration of the submissions relating to the assumption of jurisdiction, amounts to mistake apparent on the face of record. 6. The order passed by the Assessing officer which was the subject matter of the main appeal before the CIT(A) was clearly barred by limitation in as much

REKHA CHAWLA,SALEM vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SALEM, SALEM

In the result, appeals filed by both assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 375/CHNY/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha.G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.392 & 393/Chny/2021 &

For Respondent: Mr.S.R.Karuppusamy, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263

Rectification petition goes to the root of the matter as non-consideration of the submissions relating to the assumption of jurisdiction, amounts to mistake apparent on the face of record. 6. The order passed by the Assessing officer which was the subject matter of the main appeal before the CIT(A) was clearly barred by limitation in as much

REKHA CHAWLA,SALEM vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SALEM, SALEM

In the result, appeals filed by both assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 392/CHNY/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha.G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.392 & 393/Chny/2021 &

For Respondent: Mr.S.R.Karuppusamy, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263

Rectification petition goes to the root of the matter as non-consideration of the submissions relating to the assumption of jurisdiction, amounts to mistake apparent on the face of record. 6. The order passed by the Assessing officer which was the subject matter of the main appeal before the CIT(A) was clearly barred by limitation in as much

REKHA CHAWLA,SALEM vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SALEM., SALEM

In the result, appeals filed by both assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 393/CHNY/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha.G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.392 & 393/Chny/2021 &

For Respondent: Mr.S.R.Karuppusamy, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263

Rectification petition goes to the root of the matter as non-consideration of the submissions relating to the assumption of jurisdiction, amounts to mistake apparent on the face of record. 6. The order passed by the Assessing officer which was the subject matter of the main appeal before the CIT(A) was clearly barred by limitation in as much

SANJAY CHAWLA,SALEM vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SALEM., SALEM

In the result, appeals filed by both assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 394/CHNY/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha.G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.392 & 393/Chny/2021 &

For Respondent: Mr.S.R.Karuppusamy, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263

Rectification petition goes to the root of the matter as non-consideration of the submissions relating to the assumption of jurisdiction, amounts to mistake apparent on the face of record. 6. The order passed by the Assessing officer which was the subject matter of the main appeal before the CIT(A) was clearly barred by limitation in as much