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 133A(3)(ia)clear

Sorted by relevance

Bangalore77Hyderabad64Mumbai52Delhi26Jaipur12Rajkot7Chennai7Surat6Chandigarh6Ahmedabad6Kolkata4Lucknow4Nagpur2Allahabad2Pune1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)31Section 14712Addition to Income7Section 271B4Section 133A4Section 1484Depreciation4Penalty4Reassessment4Disallowance

ASTORIA LEATHERS,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in I

ITA 2548/CHNY/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Dec 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Madhavan, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271B

133A of the Act was conducted at the business premises of the assessee on 15.06.2012. During the course of the survey, it has been noticed by the Department that the assessee has been claiming depreciation in respect of non-existing asset and also claimed various expenses without any supporting evidence. In view of the above fact, the Department

4
Survey u/s 133A4
Section 250(6)3

ASTORIA LEATHERS,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in I

ITA 2549/CHNY/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Dec 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Madhavan, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271B

133A of the Act was conducted at the business premises of the assessee on 15.06.2012. During the course of the survey, it has been noticed by the Department that the assessee has been claiming depreciation in respect of non-existing asset and also claimed various expenses without any supporting evidence. In view of the above fact, the Department

ASTORIA LEATHERS,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in I

ITA 2551/CHNY/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Dec 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Madhavan, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271B

133A of the Act was conducted at the business premises of the assessee on 15.06.2012. During the course of the survey, it has been noticed by the Department that the assessee has been claiming depreciation in respect of non-existing asset and also claimed various expenses without any supporting evidence. In view of the above fact, the Department

ASTORIA LEATHERS,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in I

ITA 2553/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Dec 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Madhavan, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271B

133A of the Act was conducted at the business premises of the assessee on 15.06.2012. During the course of the survey, it has been noticed by the Department that the assessee has been claiming depreciation in respect of non-existing asset and also claimed various expenses without any supporting evidence. In view of the above fact, the Department

SIVA INDUSTRIES AND HOLDINGS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 1392/CHNY/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Dec 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am.

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Ann L Kapthuama (CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 194Section 250(6)

section 194 of the Act, was deducted by SICCL. The learned CIT(A) and AO have failed to appreciate the fact that deduction of tax from payment under the Chapter- XVII of the Act, would not change the character of the receipt in the hands of the appellant. Treatment of Interest earned as income from other sources 3.1 The learned

SIVA INDUSTRIES AND HOLDINGS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 1393/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Dec 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am.

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Ann L Kapthuama (CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 194Section 250(6)

section 194 of the Act, was deducted by SICCL. The learned CIT(A) and AO have failed to appreciate the fact that deduction of tax from payment under the Chapter- XVII of the Act, would not change the character of the receipt in the hands of the appellant. Treatment of Interest earned as income from other sources 3.1 The learned

ACADEMY OF HIGHER EDUCATION,TRICHY vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(2), TRICHY

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 1973/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Dec 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am.

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Ann L Kapthuama (CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 194Section 250(6)

section 194 of the Act, was deducted by SICCL. The learned CIT(A) and AO have failed to appreciate the fact that deduction of tax from payment under the Chapter- XVII of the Act, would not change the character of the receipt in the hands of the appellant. Treatment of Interest earned as income from other sources 3.1 The learned