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.

905 results for “house property”+ Section 13(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai4,035Delhi3,657Bangalore1,306Chennai905Karnataka782Jaipur718Ahmedabad647Hyderabad610Kolkata598Pune472Chandigarh369Surat298Indore276Cochin236Visakhapatnam225Telangana203Amritsar148Rajkot122Raipur120Lucknow94Nagpur92Cuttack91SC71Calcutta63Agra62Guwahati44Jodhpur42Patna39Dehradun30Rajasthan24Varanasi20Allahabad15Kerala13Panaji10Ranchi10Orissa9Jabalpur5Punjab & Haryana4A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN4Andhra Pradesh2Gauhati2H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1J&K1T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1ANIL R. DAVE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1Himachal Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)91Section 14769Addition to Income54Section 14847Section 4042Deduction36Exemption31Section 54F30Disallowance29Section 153C

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. VELS INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE & ADVANCED STUDIES, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for assessment

ITA 3547/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.3547 To 3550/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2015-16) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs M/S. Vels Institute Of Science, (Exemptions), Chennai Circle Technology & Advanced Chennai-600 034. Studies, 521/2, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai-600 035. Pan: Aaatv 9804F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. R.Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: 08.12.2021
Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 143(3)

property itself was taken as collateral security for the trust to avail loan from the bank. Therefore, he opined that there is no diversion of funds to interested persons without charging any interest. In fact, term loan availed from ICICI bank has been utilized for objects of the trust of imparting education and thus, there is clear error

Showing 1–20 of 905 · Page 1 of 46

...
28
Section 19526
Section 526

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. VELS INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE & ADVANCED STUDIES, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for assessment

ITA 3550/CHNY/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.3547 To 3550/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2015-16) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs M/S. Vels Institute Of Science, (Exemptions), Chennai Circle Technology & Advanced Chennai-600 034. Studies, 521/2, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai-600 035. Pan: Aaatv 9804F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. R.Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: 08.12.2021
Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 143(3)

property itself was taken as collateral security for the trust to avail loan from the bank. Therefore, he opined that there is no diversion of funds to interested persons without charging any interest. In fact, term loan availed from ICICI bank has been utilized for objects of the trust of imparting education and thus, there is clear error

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. VELS INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE & ADVANCED STUDIES, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for assessment

ITA 3548/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.3547 To 3550/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2015-16) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs M/S. Vels Institute Of Science, (Exemptions), Chennai Circle Technology & Advanced Chennai-600 034. Studies, 521/2, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai-600 035. Pan: Aaatv 9804F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. R.Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: 08.12.2021
Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 143(3)

property itself was taken as collateral security for the trust to avail loan from the bank. Therefore, he opined that there is no diversion of funds to interested persons without charging any interest. In fact, term loan availed from ICICI bank has been utilized for objects of the trust of imparting education and thus, there is clear error

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. VELS INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE & ADVANCED STUDIES, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for assessment

ITA 3549/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.3547 To 3550/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2015-16) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs M/S. Vels Institute Of Science, (Exemptions), Chennai Circle Technology & Advanced Chennai-600 034. Studies, 521/2, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai-600 035. Pan: Aaatv 9804F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. R.Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: 08.12.2021
Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 143(3)

property itself was taken as collateral security for the trust to avail loan from the bank. Therefore, he opined that there is no diversion of funds to interested persons without charging any interest. In fact, term loan availed from ICICI bank has been utilized for objects of the trust of imparting education and thus, there is clear error

SIVANANDHA MILLS LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, ITA No.2106/Mds/13 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1216/CHNY/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Milind Madhukar Bhusari, CIT
Section 143Section 143(1)

housing, factory and corporate office thereby virtually preventing all from ingress and egress. In the meantime the secured creditor – Bank of Baroda, which had earlier advanced loan against the security of all the assets, including Stock-in-Trade, had moved petition before DRT (Debts Recovery Tribunal) and also under SARFAESI Act (The 4 - - ITA 1216 & 2106/13 Securitization and Reconstruction

M/S. SIVANANDHA MILLS LTD.,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, ITA No.2106/Mds/13 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2106/CHNY/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jun 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Milind Madhukar Bhusari, CIT
Section 143Section 143(1)

housing, factory and corporate office thereby virtually preventing all from ingress and egress. In the meantime the secured creditor – Bank of Baroda, which had earlier advanced loan against the security of all the assets, including Stock-in-Trade, had moved petition before DRT (Debts Recovery Tribunal) and also under SARFAESI Act (The 4 - - ITA 1216 & 2106/13 Securitization and Reconstruction

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. GREEN HOUSE PROMOTERS P. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 1785/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jun 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 1785, 1796 & 1828/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2010-11, 2011-12 & 2009-2010. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income M/S. Green House Promoters Tax Vs. Pvt. Ltd, Company Circle Ii(1) No.4,Rama Rao Street, Chennai. T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan Aaccg 2333B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Supriyo Pal, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. Y. Sridhar, C.A
Section 194CSection 40Section 4U

properties, future potential for development, etc’’. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee during the 3. assessment year 2009-10, claimed various expenses, like architect fee etc of "17,70,000/- - without deducting any TDS and also made short deduction of TDS on expenses to the extent of "13,74,438/--. Hence, the Assessing Officer invoked

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. GREEN HOUSE PROMOTERS PRIVATE LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 1796/CHNY/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jun 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 1785, 1796 & 1828/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2010-11, 2011-12 & 2009-2010. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income M/S. Green House Promoters Tax Vs. Pvt. Ltd, Company Circle Ii(1) No.4,Rama Rao Street, Chennai. T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan Aaccg 2333B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Supriyo Pal, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. Y. Sridhar, C.A
Section 194CSection 40Section 4U

properties, future potential for development, etc’’. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee during the 3. assessment year 2009-10, claimed various expenses, like architect fee etc of "17,70,000/- - without deducting any TDS and also made short deduction of TDS on expenses to the extent of "13,74,438/--. Hence, the Assessing Officer invoked

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. GREEN HOUSE PROMOTERS PRIVATE LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 1828/CHNY/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jun 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 1785, 1796 & 1828/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2010-11, 2011-12 & 2009-2010. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income M/S. Green House Promoters Tax Vs. Pvt. Ltd, Company Circle Ii(1) No.4,Rama Rao Street, Chennai. T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan Aaccg 2333B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Supriyo Pal, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. Y. Sridhar, C.A
Section 194CSection 40Section 4U

properties, future potential for development, etc’’. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee during the 3. assessment year 2009-10, claimed various expenses, like architect fee etc of "17,70,000/- - without deducting any TDS and also made short deduction of TDS on expenses to the extent of "13,74,438/--. Hence, the Assessing Officer invoked

MADHURIKA EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assesse is partly allowed

ITA 641/CHNY/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.641/Chny/2024 ननिाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2010-11 Madhurika Educational & Asst. Director Of Income Tax Charitable Trust, Vs. (Exemptions)-Iv, No.11, Millers Road, Kilpauk, Chennai-34 Chennai-600010. [Pan: Aaatm8627M] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D.Anand, Advocate. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30.07.2024 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.10.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M : This Appeal Is Filed Against The Order Bearing Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1059541811(1) Dated 10.01.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax [Herein After “Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Center[Nfac], Delhi, For The Assessment Years 2010- 11. Through The Aforesaid Appeal The Assesse Has Challenged Order U/S 250 Dated 10.01.2024 Passed By Nfac, Delhi. :- 2 -:

For Appellant: Shri D.Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)(C)Section 13(3)(cc)Section 13(3)(d)Section 164(3)Section 250

house rental market scenario of Chennai wherein it is customary to take 10 months rent as security deposit, the Ld. AO allowed 40 lacs as the admissible security deposit and deemed Rs.70 lakhs as an excess amount within the meanings of 13(1)( c) r.w.s 13(2) of the IT act and holding that it is a case of diversion

VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,VELLORE vs. DCIT, CC IV(1), CHENNAI

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas that of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2125/CHNY/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Appellant: Shri. A. Mahesh, C.A
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)Section 132Section 153A

3 to 3.3 payments made for acquiring property at Chamiers Road, Chennai was not for the benefit of the trustees and the firm GIE in which they were partners, though the property was acquired by GIE and this constituted violation of a nature specified in Sec. 13(1) (c) of the Act. 19 CIT(A) erroneously held that

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI vs. VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, VELLORE

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas that of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2220/CHNY/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Appellant: Shri. A. Mahesh, C.A
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)Section 132Section 153A

3 to 3.3 payments made for acquiring property at Chamiers Road, Chennai was not for the benefit of the trustees and the firm GIE in which they were partners, though the property was acquired by GIE and this constituted violation of a nature specified in Sec. 13(1) (c) of the Act. 19 CIT(A) erroneously held that

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI vs. VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, VELLORE

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas that of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2219/CHNY/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Appellant: Shri. A. Mahesh, C.A
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)Section 132Section 153A

3 to 3.3 payments made for acquiring property at Chamiers Road, Chennai was not for the benefit of the trustees and the firm GIE in which they were partners, though the property was acquired by GIE and this constituted violation of a nature specified in Sec. 13(1) (c) of the Act. 19 CIT(A) erroneously held that

VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,VELLORE vs. DCIT, CC IV(1), CHENNAI

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas that of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2126/CHNY/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Appellant: Shri. A. Mahesh, C.A
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)Section 132Section 153A

3 to 3.3 payments made for acquiring property at Chamiers Road, Chennai was not for the benefit of the trustees and the firm GIE in which they were partners, though the property was acquired by GIE and this constituted violation of a nature specified in Sec. 13(1) (c) of the Act. 19 CIT(A) erroneously held that

UPPU KARUNASESH,CHENNAI vs. JCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 979/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.978 & 979/Chny/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Asish Tripathi, JCIT
Section 24Section 25BSection 26Section 27

3) The provisions of sub-section (2) shall not apply if? (a) the house or part of the house is actually let during the whole or any part of the previous year ; or (b) any other benefit therefrom is derived by the owner. (4) Where the property referred to in sub-section (2) consists of more than one house

UPPU KARUNASESH,CHENNAI vs. JCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 978/CHNY/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.978 & 979/Chny/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Asish Tripathi, JCIT
Section 24Section 25BSection 26Section 27

3) The provisions of sub-section (2) shall not apply if? (a) the house or part of the house is actually let during the whole or any part of the previous year ; or (b) any other benefit therefrom is derived by the owner. (4) Where the property referred to in sub-section (2) consists of more than one house

THAJUNNISSA BEGUM ,CHENNAI vs. ITO,NON CORPORATE WARD -10(4), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 196/CHNY/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 196/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mrs. Thajunnissa Begum, Income Tax Officer, No. 3, Prasanna Vinayagar V. Non Corporate Ward -10(4), Kovil St., Chennai. 235, Poonamalle High Road, Chennai – 600 029. [Pan: Adcpt-2186-K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Y. Sridhar, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16.02.2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2023

For Appellant: Shri. Y. Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 54

3. The ld. DR, on the other hand strongly opposing petition filed by the assessee submitted that, even if you exclude the delay covered by Covid period, still there is a delay of 117 :-3-: ITA. No:196/Chny/2022 days in filing appeal, which could not be explained by the assessee with necessary reasons. Although, assessee claims to have underwent some

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. VELS INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE & ADVANCED STUDIES, CHENNAI

In the result, ITA No.2858/Mds

ITA 2857/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Aug 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri N. Madhavan, JCITFor Respondent: Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate
Section 11Section 11(5)Section 13(1)Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(1)(d)Section 13(3)

section evidently, is not a blanket provision entailing provision - - 9 ITA 2857 & 2858/16 from dealing with interested parties, since, it has exceptions provided in the provision itself whereby any income of the Trust could be lent to any interested/related person specified in sec.13(3) of the Act with either adequate security or adequate interest or both

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. VELS INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE & ADVANCED STUDIES, CHENNAI

In the result, ITA No.2858/Mds

ITA 2858/CHNY/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Aug 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri N. Madhavan, JCITFor Respondent: Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate
Section 11Section 11(5)Section 13(1)Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(1)(d)Section 13(3)

section evidently, is not a blanket provision entailing provision - - 9 ITA 2857 & 2858/16 from dealing with interested parties, since, it has exceptions provided in the provision itself whereby any income of the Trust could be lent to any interested/related person specified in sec.13(3) of the Act with either adequate security or adequate interest or both

DYNACON EQUIPMENTS PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(4), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee in ITA

ITA 2172/CHNY/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Duvvuru R.L.Reddy

For Appellant: Mr.Srinivasa Rao Vana, JCITFor Respondent: 21.11.2019
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

House ITA Nos.2172 & 2263/Chny/2018 :- 17 -: Property’ and in that case interest expenditure allowability shall be governed by provisions of Section 24(b) of the 1961 Act . We clarify that onus is now entirely on the assessee to prove with cogent and credible evidences that interest bearing funds were borrowed from banks/FI for the purpose of acquiring factory land and factory