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.

261 results for “house property”+ Section 23(4)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,671Delhi1,451Bangalore507Jaipur321Hyderabad282Chennai261Ahmedabad203Chandigarh202Kolkata157Pune153Indore116Cochin84Rajkot72Raipur70SC64Surat59Amritsar59Visakhapatnam49Nagpur47Patna37Lucknow36Agra31Guwahati26Cuttack25Jodhpur12Allahabad9Varanasi9Jabalpur3A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN3Dehradun2Ranchi1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1Panaji1T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1ANIL R. DAVE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1

Key Topics

Addition to Income84Section 14883Section 13262Section 14753Section 143(3)48Section 153A45Section 143(2)33Section 153C33Section 271D32

TNCP LLP.,COIMBATORE vs. ITO, NCW-1(1), COIMBATORE

In the result, the quantum\nNo

ITA 2603/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 23Section 23(1)Section 24Section 270ASection 36(1)(va)

house property income was debatable. However, considering the facts, the Tribunal decided to estimate the Annual Letable Value (ALV) at 4% on the estimated cost of unsold units. The Tribunal also held that the penalty levied under Section 270A was not justified as the addition was based on a deeming provision and not misreporting.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": ["23

Showing 1–20 of 261 · Page 1 of 14

...
Disallowance26
Search & Seizure20
Reassessment20

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

23,012/-. From the above facts, it is very clear that property transferred by the assessee by way of compulsory acquisition by Chennai Metro Rail Ltd is a long term capital asset, which is eligible for the benefit of exemption u/s. 54 of the Act. Although, there is a dispute with regard to the nature of property, whether

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, COIMBATORE vs. M/S. RP INFRA PROJECTS LIMITED, ERODE

In the result, all these four appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 335/CHNY/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Mr. Shivanand K. Kalakeri, CITFor Respondent: Mr. N.Arjun Raj, Advocate
Section 250(1)Section 80Section 80I

housing or other activities being an integral part of the highway project..... The issue has been examined by the Board. It has been decided that widening of an existing Road by constructing additional lanes as a part of a highway project by an undertaking would be regarded as a new infrastructure facility for the purpose of section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, COIMBATORE vs. M/S RPP INFRA PROJECTS LIMITED, ERODE

In the result, all these four appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 333/CHNY/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Mr. Shivanand K. Kalakeri, CITFor Respondent: Mr. N.Arjun Raj, Advocate
Section 250(1)Section 80Section 80I

housing or other activities being an integral part of the highway project..... The issue has been examined by the Board. It has been decided that widening of an existing Road by constructing additional lanes as a part of a highway project by an undertaking would be regarded as a new infrastructure facility for the purpose of section

TNCD LLP.,COIMBATORE vs. ITO, NCW-1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the quantum appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 2602/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:2602 & 2603/Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Tncd Llp, Ito, 126, Kg House, Vs. Non Corporate Ward -1(1), Arts College Road, Coimbatore. Coimbatore – 641 018. [Pan:Aagft-8799-R] (अपीलाथ%/Appellant) (&'थ%/Respondent) अपीलाथ% की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate &'थ% की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anitha, Addl.C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.02.2026 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl.C.I.T
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 23Section 23(1)Section 24Section 270ASection 36(1)(va)

house property. 18. However, the said submission of the assessee came to be rejected by the Ld.CIT(Appeals) who had held as follows: “Grounds No. 4 to 8: These grounds concern the application of section 23

DCIT , COIMBATORE vs. M/S RPP INFRA PROJECTS LIMITED , ERODE

In the result, all these four appeals filed by the Revenue are\ndismissed

ITA 847/CHNY/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2016-2017
Section 250(1)Section 80Section 80I

housing or other activities being an\nintegral part of the highway project.....\nThe issue has been examined by the Board. It has been decided that\nwidening of an existing Road by constructing additional lanes as a part\nof a highway project by an undertaking would be regarded as a new\ninfrastructure facility for the purpose of section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, COIMBATORE vs. M/S RPP INFRA PROJECTS LIMITED, ERODE

In the result, all these four appeals filed by the Revenue are\ndismissed

ITA 334/CHNY/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2013-14
Section 250(1)Section 80Section 80I

housing or other activities being an\nintegral part of the highway project.....\nThe issue has been examined by the Board. It has been decided that\nwidening of an existing Road by constructing additional lanes as a part\nof a highway project by an undertaking would be regarded as a new\ninfrastructure facility for the purpose of section

RAMAKRISHNAN PRABHU JYOTHI,,COIMBATORE vs. ACOT, NCC-5, , COIMBATORE

In the result the appeal is dismissed

ITA 690/CHNY/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Aug 2024AY 2016-17
Section 142ASection 142A(1)Section 142A(6)Section 143(1)Section 153Section 250

house property measuring land\narea of 20.945 grounds with an old residential building situated at\nSundar Mahal, Gopalapuram, Chennai for a consideration of\nRs.141,25,00,000/-: The enter consideration paid to M/s Jeypore Sugar\nMills Limited was through RTGS from his bank accounts. On the basis of\nthe above agreement and settlement of Rs.114.25 crores towards\nresidential property

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

23,98,537\n2 NO.77, MEDAVAKKAM MAIN ROAD, MADIPAKKAM Let Out 4,80,000 1,44,000 5,27,279 -1,91,279 4,80,000 1,44,000 3,36,000 capital was not borrowed for the purpose of Acquision or construction or repair. Loan borrowed on November 3, 2007 (loan against Property)\n3 NO.154/123,SADASIVAM NAGAR, BAZZAR ROAD

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON-CORPORATE CIRCLE 7(1), CHENNAI vs. VELLORE SUBRAMANIAN SARAVANAN, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Re

ITA 1132/CHNY/2023[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Mar 2025

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 54F

4. The appellant assessee sold a residential house property at No.137, Sundar Nagar, New Delhi on 15.1.2010 in favour of one Smt.Vanadana Manchanda, for Nagar, New Delhi on 15.1.2010 in favour of one Smt.Vanadana Manchanda, for Nagar, New Delhi on 15.1.2010 in favour of one Smt.Vanadana Manchanda, for a total consideration of Rs.12,50,00,000/ consideration of Rs.12

MENAKURU SUKUMAR REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT(A), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 992/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. P. Murali Mohana Rao, CAFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 251(2)Section 69A

23,543/- 6,30,02,200/- 52,28,25,743/- 66,91,366/- 51,61,34,377/- 4,84,45,000/- 56,45,79,377/- 4,99,22,416/- 51,46,56,961/- Pvt Ltd Ruby 4 Realty Pvt 31,88,280/- - 31,88,280/- - 31,88,280/- - 31,88,280/- - 31,88,280/- Ltd Sukven infra

MENAKURU SUKUMAR REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT(A), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 991/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. P. Murali Mohana Rao, CAFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 251(2)Section 69A

23,543/- 6,30,02,200/- 52,28,25,743/- 66,91,366/- 51,61,34,377/- 4,84,45,000/- 56,45,79,377/- 4,99,22,416/- 51,46,56,961/- Pvt Ltd Ruby 4 Realty Pvt 31,88,280/- - 31,88,280/- - 31,88,280/- - 31,88,280/- - 31,88,280/- Ltd Sukven infra

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

23,98,537\n2\nLet Out\nNO.77, MEDAVAKKAM MAIN ROAD, MADIPAKKAM\nNO.154/123,SADASIVAM NAGAR, BAZZAR ROAD,\n4,80,000 1,44,000\n5,27,279 -1,91,279 4,80,000 1,44,000\n3,36,000\ncapital was not borrowed for the purpose of\nAcquision or construction or repair. Loan borrowed\non November 3, 2007 (loan against Property

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), CHENNAI vs. M/S BSR BUILDERS ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 732/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:732, 733 & 734/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 & C.O Nos.34, 35 & 36/Chny/2023 [In I.T.A. Nos.732, 733 & 734/Chny/2023] The Dcit, M/S. Bsr Builders Central Circle 2(3), Vs. Engineers & Contractors, Chennai. No.28, Tank Bund Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aagfb 7140N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (Respondent / Cross Objector) राज" की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri G. Baskar & Shri P.M. Kathir, Advocates सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.02.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27.03.2024

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar & Shri P.M. KathirFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 250(2)

property area of 27522 sq.ft., is sold to Dr. Murugu Sundaram and Dr. Raja Sundaram. The AO noted that the assessee has received this cash payment of Rs.3.20 crores in financial year 2012-13 relevant to this assessment year 2013-14 and assessee’s reply is evasive in regard to project completion method and hence, he assessed this cash received

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), CHENNAI vs. M/S BSR BUILDERS ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 733/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:732, 733 & 734/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 & C.O Nos.34, 35 & 36/Chny/2023 [In I.T.A. Nos.732, 733 & 734/Chny/2023] The Dcit, M/S. Bsr Builders Central Circle 2(3), Vs. Engineers & Contractors, Chennai. No.28, Tank Bund Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aagfb 7140N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (Respondent / Cross Objector) राज" की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri G. Baskar & Shri P.M. Kathir, Advocates सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.02.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27.03.2024

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar & Shri P.M. KathirFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 250(2)

property area of 27522 sq.ft., is sold to Dr. Murugu Sundaram and Dr. Raja Sundaram. The AO noted that the assessee has received this cash payment of Rs.3.20 crores in financial year 2012-13 relevant to this assessment year 2013-14 and assessee’s reply is evasive in regard to project completion method and hence, he assessed this cash received

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), CHENNAI vs. M/S BSR BUILDERS ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 734/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:732, 733 & 734/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 & C.O Nos.34, 35 & 36/Chny/2023 [In I.T.A. Nos.732, 733 & 734/Chny/2023] The Dcit, M/S. Bsr Builders Central Circle 2(3), Vs. Engineers & Contractors, Chennai. No.28, Tank Bund Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aagfb 7140N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (Respondent / Cross Objector) राज" की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri G. Baskar & Shri P.M. Kathir, Advocates सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.02.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27.03.2024

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar & Shri P.M. KathirFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 250(2)

property area of 27522 sq.ft., is sold to Dr. Murugu Sundaram and Dr. Raja Sundaram. The AO noted that the assessee has received this cash payment of Rs.3.20 crores in financial year 2012-13 relevant to this assessment year 2013-14 and assessee’s reply is evasive in regard to project completion method and hence, he assessed this cash received

KESAVAN VANITHAMANI,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-19(4), CHENNAI

ITA 2451/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy.S & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2451 & 2452/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19

For Appellant: Mr. R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl. CIT
Section 250Section 54F

4. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to note that the Appellant was in possession of only one residential property and one Tannery, other than the new asset, at the date of transfer of the original asset thereby not warranting the applicability of the First Proviso to Section 54F of the Act. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. BSR BUILDERS ENGINEERS CONTRACTORS, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AYs 2016-17 & 2017-18

ITA 1274/CHNY/2025[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1311 & 1312/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 V. Bsr Builders Engineers Contractors, The Dcit, No.28, Bsr Janus, Tank Bund Road, Central Circle-2(3), Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. Chennai. [Pan: Aagfb 7140 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1274 & 1561/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2016-17 V. The Dcit / Acit, Bsr Builders Engineers Central Circle-2(3), Contractors, Chennai. No.28, Bsr Janus, Tank Bund Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. [Pan: Aagfb 7140 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.G. Baskar, Advocate &For Respondent: Mr.Nishanth Rao, JCIT

4 In any case, the properties being occupied by the appellant in course of its business, house property income does not arise from the same and thus the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition. 5 The CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition without considering the appellant's submissions and cases relied on 6 The CIT(A) erred

BSR BUILDERS ENGINEERS CONTRACTORS,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AYs 2016-17 & 2017-18

ITA 1312/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1311 & 1312/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 V. Bsr Builders Engineers Contractors, The Dcit, No.28, Bsr Janus, Tank Bund Road, Central Circle-2(3), Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. Chennai. [Pan: Aagfb 7140 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1274 & 1561/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2016-17 V. The Dcit / Acit, Bsr Builders Engineers Central Circle-2(3), Contractors, Chennai. No.28, Bsr Janus, Tank Bund Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. [Pan: Aagfb 7140 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.G. Baskar, Advocate &For Respondent: Mr.Nishanth Rao, JCIT

4 In any case, the properties being occupied by the appellant in course of its business, house property income does not arise from the same and thus the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition. 5 The CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition without considering the appellant's submissions and cases relied on 6 The CIT(A) erred

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. BSR BUILDERS ENGINEERS CONTRACTORS , CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AYs 2016-17 & 2017-18

ITA 1561/CHNY/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1311 & 1312/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 V. Bsr Builders Engineers Contractors, The Dcit, No.28, Bsr Janus, Tank Bund Road, Central Circle-2(3), Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. Chennai. [Pan: Aagfb 7140 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1274 & 1561/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2016-17 V. The Dcit / Acit, Bsr Builders Engineers Central Circle-2(3), Contractors, Chennai. No.28, Bsr Janus, Tank Bund Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. [Pan: Aagfb 7140 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.G. Baskar, Advocate &For Respondent: Mr.Nishanth Rao, JCIT

4 In any case, the properties being occupied by the appellant in course of its business, house property income does not arise from the same and thus the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition. 5 The CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition without considering the appellant's submissions and cases relied on 6 The CIT(A) erred