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.

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

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai3,014Delhi2,826Bangalore1,041Karnataka683Jaipur595Chennai594Ahmedabad520Kolkata482Hyderabad358Pune312Chandigarh295Surat237Indore207Cochin198Telangana170Amritsar121Visakhapatnam112Rajkot95Raipur89Lucknow82SC66Nagpur66Cuttack62Calcutta61Agra30Patna29Jodhpur29Guwahati27Dehradun19Rajasthan17Varanasi15Kerala13Allahabad12Ranchi8Orissa8Panaji4A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN4Punjab & Haryana3Gauhati2Andhra Pradesh2J&K1Himachal Pradesh1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1ANIL R. DAVE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 14894Addition to Income62Section 143(3)48Section 14739Disallowance39Section 271D26Section 153A25Section 153C25Section 4025

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 594 · Page 1 of 30

...
Section 13224
Deduction22
Reassessment19

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

c) and (d) are evidenced, the ineligibility to claim exemption under section 11 becomes operative. Consequently, in view of overriding nature of provisions of section 13 the excess income, would have to be computed as per the regular provisions of the act and brought under tax. Accordingly, the orders of the lower authorities in respect of impugned additions

DDIT, CHENNAI vs. VELS INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY & ADVANCED STUDIES,, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeal of the Revenue and the cross- objection of the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 1759/CHNY/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1759/Mds/2013 & C.O. No.15/Mds/2014 (In I.T.A. No.1759/Mds/2013) "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri S. Bharath, CITFor Respondent: Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)

c) of section 5 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949), with a banking institution as referred to in sub-section (15) of section 45 of the said Act, sanctioned and brought into force by the Central Government under sub-section (7) of section 45 of that Act, of any asset by the banking company to the banking

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

c) of this sub-section, the amount of actual rent received or receivable by the owner shall not include, 9 I.T.A. Nos.978 & 979/Chny/15 subject to such rules as may be made in this behalf, the amount of rent which the owner cannot realise. (2) Where the property consists of a house or part of a house which

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

c) of this sub-section, the amount of actual rent received or receivable by the owner shall not include, 9 I.T.A. Nos.978 & 979/Chny/15 subject to such rules as may be made in this behalf, the amount of rent which the owner cannot realise. (2) Where the property consists of a house or part of a house which

ASFA TECHNOLOGIES & BPO PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 1(4), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1893/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Ms. Hema Bhupal, JCITFor Respondent: 26.07.2022
Section 119Section 119(2)Section 23Section 23(1)Section 23(1)(c)

3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee did not carry on any business during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 2013-14. The assessee owns commercial property at New No.64, Old No.30, Ethiraj Salai, Egmore, Chennai-600 008. The assessee’s source of income is rental receipts from commercial property right from assessment year

TAMIL NADU BRICK INDUSTRIES,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

ITA 744/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 May 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.744/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 M/S. Tamilnadu Brick Industries, The Income Tax Officer, No. 47, Mangali Nagar 1St Street, Vs. Non Corporate Circle 8(1), Arumbakkam, Chennai 600 106. Chennai. [Pan: Aafft3643P] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vijay Kumar Punna, Jr. Standing Counsel सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 13.02.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.05.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 9, Chennai, Dated 27.02.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: “1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 9, Chennai Dated 27.02.2017 In I.T.A.No.07/Cit(A)-9/2016-17 For The Above Mentioned Assessment Year Is Contrary To Law, Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Punna
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(47)(v)

housing project. In this regard, clauses 6(c) and 9 of MOA elaborate the nature of developmental works to be carried out by the developer simultaneously on execution of JDA. The relevant clauses are reproduced as under: “6(c) The Second Party after satisfying themselves that the title of the Owners is clear and marketable, shall arrange to clear

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

ITA 2577/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: This Tribunal.

Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

Section 56(2)(vii)(c) 92,95,305 (15.1-15.5) Foreign Travel Expenses Unexplained investment u/s 69 Unexplained money 2,48,407 (11.5) 8,24,774 (13.4) 1,68,000 (12.5) 25,200 (12.6) 3,40,000 (12.7) 1,50,000 (14.1-14.6) 3,96,016 (11.5) 8,25,418 (13.4) 1,68,000 (12.5) 25,200 (12.6) 3

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

ITA 2570/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: This Tribunal. 2. Since, The Facts Are The Identical Across All The Appeals / For All The Assessment Years, Except For The Nature Of The Additions / Disallowances Varying In Few Of The Assessment Year(S) Before This Tribunal In The Present Batch Of 6 Appeals, The Appeal Arising From The A.Y. 2012-13 Is Being Taken Up As The Lead Case With The Consent Of The Both The Ld. Ar As Well As The Departmental Representatives. 3. The Brief Fact Of The Present Case Is That The Assessee, Shri Thanushkodi Narayanan, Is The Managing Director Of M/S.Annai Builders Real Estates Pvt Ltd. The Assessee Filed His Original Return Of Income For The A.Y. 2012-13 On 27.09.2012 In Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.24,87,430/-. 4. A Search & Seizure Operation Was Carried Out In Terms Of Section 132 Of The Act On 04.10.2017 In The Residential Premises Of The Assessee & Also In The Premises Of M/S.Annai Builders Real Estates Pvt. Ltd. In Which The Assessee Is The Managing Director. 5. Thereafter, A Notice U/S.153A Of The Act For The A.Y.2012-13 Was Issued On 25.09.2018 To The Assessee By The Assessing Officer (In Short “Ao”) & In Response To The Same, The Assessee Had Filed E-Return Of Income For The A.Y. 2012-13 On 17.08.2019 In Declaring Total Income Of Rs.14,53,440/-. :-3-:

Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

House Property by following the procedure laid down under the Act at para 6.4.6., had confirmed the addition of Rs.1,38,70,048/- made as deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(e) of the Act at para 6.5.3 and confirmed the addition of Rs.92,95,305/- made u/s.56(2)(viii)(c) of the Act at para 6.6.5 of the impugned order