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.

113 results for “house property”+ Section 156(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi578Karnataka452Mumbai368Bangalore175Chennai113Hyderabad102Ahmedabad90Cochin80Jaipur72Calcutta53Chandigarh50Kolkata43Raipur33Telangana32Pune23Indore22Lucknow16Cuttack13SC11Nagpur11Visakhapatnam10Surat10Agra8Rajasthan5Varanasi5Amritsar5Jodhpur4Ranchi2Orissa2Rajkot2Panaji1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 148251Section 153A109Section 14796Section 143(3)80Section 15176Section 148A53Reassessment51Addition to Income47Section 151A45

SHRI K.SRIKANTH,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

ITA 307/CHNY/2010[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2020AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

house property as also that the AO has not verify as to whether conditions as prescribed u/s 54F were fulfilled by the assessee or not. Thus, learned CIT vide revisionary order dated 22.01.2010 passed u/s.263 of the 1961 Act held that assessment order dated 31.12.2008 passed by AO as erroneous so far as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue

SRI K.SRIKANTH,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT,, CHENNAI

Showing 1–20 of 113 · Page 1 of 6

Reopening of Assessment33
Section 144B32
Disallowance26

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

ITA 1015/CHNY/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2020AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

house property as also that the AO has not verify as to whether conditions as prescribed u/s 54F were fulfilled by the assessee or not. Thus, learned CIT vide revisionary order dated 22.01.2010 passed u/s.263 of the 1961 Act held that assessment order dated 31.12.2008 passed by AO as erroneous so far as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue

ACIT,, CHENNAI vs. SRI. K.SRIKANTH,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

ITA 1324/CHNY/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2020AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

house property as also that the AO has not verify as to whether conditions as prescribed u/s 54F were fulfilled by the assessee or not. Thus, learned CIT vide revisionary order dated 22.01.2010 passed u/s.263 of the 1961 Act held that assessment order dated 31.12.2008 passed by AO as erroneous so far as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue

SRI K.SRIKANTH,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

ITA 1016/CHNY/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2020AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

house property as also that the AO has not verify as to whether conditions as prescribed u/s 54F were fulfilled by the assessee or not. Thus, learned CIT vide revisionary order dated 22.01.2010 passed u/s.263 of the 1961 Act held that assessment order dated 31.12.2008 passed by AO as erroneous so far as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 5(1), CHENNAI vs. REPCO HOME FINANCE P LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA no

ITA 2885/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jun 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: JCITFor Respondent: Shri M. Viswanathan, C.A
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 36(1)(viii)

properties , fresh sanction plans issued by local municipal authorities etc. to substantiate that the loans were granted/utilised for the purposes of construction of additional floors etc to the borrowers. The matter is remitted back to AO and the assessee is directed to produce all details before the AO. The AO shall in remand proceedings after considering the submissions

LOGANATHAN DHANDAPANI,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NCC-3(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2240/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151A

House of Parliament] and formulated a Scheme called "the e-Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022" (herein after ‘the Scheme’). And that the Scheme provides that (a) the assessment, reassessment or re-computation u/s.147 of the Act and (b) Mr. Loganathan Dhandapani :: 3 :: the issuance of notice u/s.148 of the Act shall be through automated allocation, in accordance with

MANICKAM CHETTIAR VELMURUGAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCC-19(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1166/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.Hithesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151A

House of Parliament] and formulated a Scheme called "the e-Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022" (herein after ‘the Scheme’). And that the Scheme provides that (a) the assessment, reassessment or re-computation u/s.147 of the Act and (b) the issuance of notice u/s.148 of the Act shall be through automated allocation, in accordance with risk management strategy formulated

MANICKAM CHETTIAR VELMURUGAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCC-19(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1165/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.Hithesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151A

House of Parliament] and formulated a Scheme called "the e-Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022" (herein after ‘the Scheme’). And that the Scheme provides that (a) the assessment, reassessment or re-computation u/s.147 of the Act and (b) the issuance of notice u/s.148 of the Act shall be through automated allocation, in accordance with risk management strategy formulated

CHAHIDA BEGAM,PUDUCHERRY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3, PUDUCHERRY RANGE, INCOME TAX OFFICE, PUDUCHERRY

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1219/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.Hithesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151A

House of Parliament] and formulated a Scheme called "the e-Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022" (herein after ‘the Scheme’). And that the Scheme provides that (a) the assessment, reassessment or re-computation u/s.147 of the Act and (b) Chahida Begam :: 3 :: the issuance of notice u/s.148 of the Act shall be through automated allocation, in accordance with risk

THANARAJ SUMATHI,MAYILADUTHURAI vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2031/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.:2031/Chny/2025 यनिाारणवर्ा / Assessment Year:2019-20 Thanaraj Sumathi, Income Tax Officer, No.3/25, North Street, Vs. Ward-1 Moovalur, Kumbakonam. Mayiladuthurai – 609806. Tamil Nadu. [Pan:Knyps-1061-J] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थीकीओरसे/Appellant By : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate. प्रत्यर्थीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anitha, Cit. सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.10.2025 घोर्णाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.10.2025

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, CIT
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151A

House of Parliament] and formulated a Scheme called "the e-Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022" (herein after ‘the Scheme’). And that the Scheme provides that (a) the assessment, reassessment or re-computation u/s.147 of the Act and (b) the issuance of notice u/s.148 of the Act shall be through automated allocation, in accordance with risk management strategy formulated

INCOME TAX OFFICER, CHENNAI vs. RAJKUMARI , CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 353/CHNY/2024[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Oct 2024

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CITFor Respondent: Shri D.Anand, Advocate
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 156

house property, capital gains claimed under the head ‘capital gain’ and deductions claimed under Chapter VIA of the Act. We noted that the assessment order in this case was framed by AO only on 20.12.2019 but it was under mistaken notion or mistaken belief or may be under new technical effect of cut paste has pasted the relevant assessment order

S.VICTOR AROCKIAM,ARIYALUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, TRICHY

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 348/CHNY/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri R. Viswanathan (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Guru Bashyam (CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 40A(3)

156, that did not per se preclude the Assessing Officer to proceed under Section 143(2). The right preserved was not taken away. The Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to the period between April 1, 1989 and March 31, 1998, and the second proviso to Sub-section (1) Clause (a) of Section 143 and its substitution with effect from

M.MALARVIZHI,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 8(5), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 779/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.779/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 Smt. M. Malarvizhi, The Income Tax Officer, 18, Mettu Theru, Vs. Non Corporate Ward 8(5), Kumananchavadi, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 056. [Pan:Apjpm2455H] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Pranay J. Shah, C.A ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.07.2019 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 30.01.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee In The Grounds Of Appeal Are Reproduced As Under: “1. For That The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 9, Chennai U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961Is Opposed To Law, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. For That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Passing The Order Dismissing The Appeal Filed By The Appellant Herein Without Noting That The Notice Issued By The 2

For Appellant: Shri Pranay J. Shah, C.A ""For Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 148Section 156Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 50C

3 I.T.A. No.779/Chny/19 2.1 During the course of scrutiny proceedings, when the assessee was asked to explain why the capital gain on the sale of property and other income was not admitted fully, then the assessee has admitted additional interest income of ₹.4,09,025/-; House property income of ₹. 8,400/- and Long term capital gain

RAMEYSH RAMDAS,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1399/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S.Jayaraman

For Appellant: Mr.N.P.Vijayakumar,AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.AR.V.Sreenivasan, JCIT,DR
Section 53ASection 54Section 54E

house at plot No.140, Door No.59, MGR Road, Kalaskshetra Colony, Besant Nagar, Chennai. It was a submission that the assessee and his mother entered into Joint Development Agreement with M/s.Chaitanya Eastlyn on 13.07.2011 with a proposal to demolish the existing building and construct residential Apartments in the said land. Consequent to the agreement, the assessee had received part consideration

ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 10(1), CHENNAI vs. S.VINODH KUMAR, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2527/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2527/Chny/2017 & C.O.No.9/Chny/2018 (Ita No.2527/Chny/2017) "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-2012. The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Shri. S. Vinodh Kumar, Income Tax, No.25, Ranganathan Avenue, Non Corporate Circle 10 (1) Kilpauk, Chennai. Chennai 600 010. [Pan Aaipv 5798G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (Respondent/Cross Objector)

For Respondent: Shri. T.N. Seetharaman, Advocate
Section 44A

house property earned by Minor V. Palak with his income in accordance with Section 64 of the Act. Against the rental income of "54,68,000/-, assessee had claimed deduction of "32,27,156/- as ITA No. 2527-17, CO-09-18 :- 8 -: unrealized dues from one Shree Krishna Corpn Limited. Ld. Assessing Officer had denied the claim

SMT. V.PRREMALATHA,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

The appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 25/CHNY/2012[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jun 2022AY 2005-2006

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

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan (Advocate ) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Karthick Ranganathan
Section 132Section 132ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234BSection 234C

156, that did not per se preclude the Assessing Officer to proceed under Section 143(2). The right preserved was not taken away. The Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to the period between April 1, 1989 and March 31, 1998, and the second proviso to Sub-section (1) Clause (a) of Section 143 and its substitution with effect from

SMT. V.PRREMALATHA,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

The appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 21/CHNY/2012[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jun 2022AY 2001-2002

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

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan (Advocate ) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Karthick Ranganathan
Section 132Section 132ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234BSection 234C

156, that did not per se preclude the Assessing Officer to proceed under Section 143(2). The right preserved was not taken away. The Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to the period between April 1, 1989 and March 31, 1998, and the second proviso to Sub-section (1) Clause (a) of Section 143 and its substitution with effect from

SMT. V.PRREMALATHA,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

The appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 22/CHNY/2012[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jun 2022AY 2002-2003

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

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan (Advocate ) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Karthick Ranganathan
Section 132Section 132ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234BSection 234C

156, that did not per se preclude the Assessing Officer to proceed under Section 143(2). The right preserved was not taken away. The Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to the period between April 1, 1989 and March 31, 1998, and the second proviso to Sub-section (1) Clause (a) of Section 143 and its substitution with effect from

SMT. V.PRREMALATHA,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

The appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 23/CHNY/2012[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jun 2022AY 2003-2004

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

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan (Advocate ) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Karthick Ranganathan
Section 132Section 132ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234BSection 234C

156, that did not per se preclude the Assessing Officer to proceed under Section 143(2). The right preserved was not taken away. The Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to the period between April 1, 1989 and March 31, 1998, and the second proviso to Sub-section (1) Clause (a) of Section 143 and its substitution with effect from

SMT. V.PRREMALATHA,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

The appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 24/CHNY/2012[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jun 2022AY 2004-2005

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

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan (Advocate ) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Karthick Ranganathan
Section 132Section 132ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234BSection 234C

156, that did not per se preclude the Assessing Officer to proceed under Section 143(2). The right preserved was not taken away. The Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to the period between April 1, 1989 and March 31, 1998, and the second proviso to Sub-section (1) Clause (a) of Section 143 and its substitution with effect from