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.

219 results for “house property”+ Section 250clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,380Delhi882Karnataka442Bangalore436Jaipur255Chennai219Kolkata200Surat179Ahmedabad169Hyderabad139Pune104Amritsar102Chandigarh95Cochin86Rajkot60Indore60Visakhapatnam50Calcutta50Nagpur48Raipur37Patna37Telangana33Lucknow25Guwahati15Jodhpur14Allahabad14Cuttack10Varanasi9SC8Dehradun8Jabalpur6Ranchi5Panaji5Rajasthan4Agra4Orissa2Kerala2Andhra Pradesh1Himachal Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 153A76Section 143(3)69Addition to Income59Section 25040Section 14838Disallowance38Section 5436Section 54F30Exemption26Section 147

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

250 dated 09.03.2020 passed by CIT(A), Coimbatore.\n:- 2 -:\nITA No.690/Chny/2020\n2.0 Before proceeding further, it is necessary to examine the grounds\nof appeal raised by the appellant. The appellant had originally filed\ngrounds of appeal which were out rightly descriptive and narrative in\nnature. The appellant, vide order dated 30.11.2023, was directed to file\nto file concise grounds

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

Showing 1–20 of 219 · Page 1 of 11

...
23
Section 4021
Natural Justice17
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

250/- on protective basis Though the A.O. did not write protective basis but stayed the recovery proceedings as the same issue was pending before CIT(A). 5.1.5 Timeline of the transaction and undisputed facts are as under. - 10.10.1971 Properties were acquired on 10.10.1971 through settlement deed. ii. 12.10.2008 The appellant entered into JDA with A K Properties Promoters (AK hereafter

C.ARYAMA SUNDARAM,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1208/CHNY/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Dec 2016AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Respondent: Shri Durai Pandian, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54(1)

250 of the Income Tax Act. :-2-: I.T.A. No.1208/Mds/2015 2. The Assessee has raised the following grounds: 2.1 The CIT(A) erred in confirming the order passed by the Assessing Officer, relating to the computation of Long Term Capital Gains arising on the sale of property of the appellant, and situate at No. 137, Sundar Nagar, New Delhi

GURUPRASAD ANGISETTY,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1123/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jul 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri. G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. P. Radhakrishanan, IRS
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 53ASection 54Section 54(1)Section 54F

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- ‘’2.1 The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in denying claim for exemption u/s. 54F of the IT Act. 2.2 The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) failed

ARAVA SUBBA RAO,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2064/CHNY/2015[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Apr 2016AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri. G. Pavan Kumar

For Respondent: Shri. A.V.Sreekanth, IRS, JCIT
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 22Section 23(1)Section 23(2)Section 24

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) 2. The substantive ground raised by the assessee that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the findings of the Assessing Officer on self occupied house property assessed u/s.23(1) of the Act treated as deemed let out on estimated annual value

ITO, TRICHY vs. N.CHANDRAN, TRICHY

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1791/CHNY/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 May 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri. G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. A.V.Sreekanth, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54FSection 68Section 69

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds:- 2.‘’ The ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of "51,76,378/- made by the Assessing Officer by disallowing the claim towards deduction u/s.54F made by the assessee. 3. The ld. CIT(A) has erred

SUBRAMANYAM BASKARAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for 8

ITA 264/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jul 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. S. Krishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri. P. Radhakrishnan, IRS, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54F

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’). The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 2. 01. ‘’On the facts and in the circumstance of the case and, in law the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the order dated 4th February, 2015 of the Income Tax Officer International Taxation

K.SIVAKUMAR,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in I

ITA 1765/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1762, 1763, 1764 & 1765/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Srinivas, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153A

house property and allow deduction under Section 24 of the Act. 11. The next ground of appeal is regarding disallowance of expenditure under Section 69C of the Act. 12. Sh. R. Vijayaraghavan, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that the Assessing Officer found that there was inadequate drawing for household expenditure. According to the Ld. counsel, the assessee claimed opening

K.SIVAKUMAR,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in I

ITA 1763/CHNY/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1762, 1763, 1764 & 1765/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Srinivas, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153A

house property and allow deduction under Section 24 of the Act. 11. The next ground of appeal is regarding disallowance of expenditure under Section 69C of the Act. 12. Sh. R. Vijayaraghavan, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that the Assessing Officer found that there was inadequate drawing for household expenditure. According to the Ld. counsel, the assessee claimed opening

K.SIVAKUMAR,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in I

ITA 1762/CHNY/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1762, 1763, 1764 & 1765/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Srinivas, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153A

house property and allow deduction under Section 24 of the Act. 11. The next ground of appeal is regarding disallowance of expenditure under Section 69C of the Act. 12. Sh. R. Vijayaraghavan, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that the Assessing Officer found that there was inadequate drawing for household expenditure. According to the Ld. counsel, the assessee claimed opening

K.SIVAKUMAR,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in I

ITA 1764/CHNY/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1762, 1763, 1764 & 1765/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Srinivas, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153A

house property and allow deduction under Section 24 of the Act. 11. The next ground of appeal is regarding disallowance of expenditure under Section 69C of the Act. 12. Sh. R. Vijayaraghavan, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that the Assessing Officer found that there was inadequate drawing for household expenditure. According to the Ld. counsel, the assessee claimed opening

GUNAPALAN MALLINATHAN,RANIPET vs. ITO, WARD-2,, VELLORE

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

ITA 665/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 665/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2020-21 Shri Gunapalan Mallinathan, The Income Tax Officer, No.21, Kaviarasu Kannadasan Vs. Ward 2, Street, Vellore. Sriramnagar, Valasaravakkam, Chennai – 600 087. Pan: Adipm 2621A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gowthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.08.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gowthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 250

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2020-21. 2. There is a delay of 62 days in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. The appeal ought to have been filed before ITAT on or before 31.12.2024. However, the appeal was filed belatedly on 03.03.2025. The assessee has filed

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. SHRI D. RAVIKUMAR, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 140/CHNY/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Nov 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. P. Radhakrishnan, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. N. Sabapathy, Advocate
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54FSection 54F(1)

sections 143(3) and 250 of the Income Tax Act (in short ‘’the Act’’). The Revenue has raised the following grounds:- 2. ‘’2.1 The learned CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to allow exemption to the assessee under Sec.54F of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2.2 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the assessee

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. A S CARGO MOVERS PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and assessee are decided as under:-

ITA 1688/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1688 /Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2015-16 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1796 /Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2017-18 Assistant Commissioner Of Income A.S.Cargo Movers Private Limited, Tax, New No.173, Old No.103, 9Th Floor B Corporate Circle-1(1), Block, Navins Presidium, Chennai. Nelson Manickam Road, Aminjikarai, Chennai-600 029. [Pan: Aaaca7739D] आयकर अपील सं./Co No.56 /Chny/2024 (Ita No.1688/Chny/2024) निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2015-16 A.S.Cargo Movers Private Limited, Assistant Commissioner Of Income New No.173, Old No.103, 9Th Floor B Tax, Block, Navins Presidium, Corporate Circle-1(1), Nelson Manickam Road, Chennai. Aminjikarai, Chennai-600 029. [Pan: Aaaca7739D] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri N.Quadir Hoseyn, Advocate & Dr.L.Natarajan, Ca. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri K.N.Dhandapani, Cit सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2024 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.01.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri N.Quadir Hoseyn, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri K.N.Dhandapani, CIT
Section 250

250 passed by NFAC, Delhi and assessee vide CO No.56/Chny/2024 for AY 2015- 16 has contested order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1062081250 dated 06.03.2024 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [herein after “CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Center[NFAC], Delhi for AY- 2015-16. For the purposes of convenience all the aboves appeals are taken by way of this common order

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. A S CARGO MOVERS PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and assessee are decided as under:-

ITA 1796/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1688 /Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2015-16 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1796 /Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2017-18 Assistant Commissioner Of Income A.S.Cargo Movers Private Limited, Tax, New No.173, Old No.103, 9Th Floor B Corporate Circle-1(1), Block, Navins Presidium, Chennai. Nelson Manickam Road, Aminjikarai, Chennai-600 029. [Pan: Aaaca7739D] आयकर अपील सं./Co No.56 /Chny/2024 (Ita No.1688/Chny/2024) निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2015-16 A.S.Cargo Movers Private Limited, Assistant Commissioner Of Income New No.173, Old No.103, 9Th Floor B Tax, Block, Navins Presidium, Corporate Circle-1(1), Nelson Manickam Road, Chennai. Aminjikarai, Chennai-600 029. [Pan: Aaaca7739D] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri N.Quadir Hoseyn, Advocate & Dr.L.Natarajan, Ca. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri K.N.Dhandapani, Cit सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2024 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.01.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri N.Quadir Hoseyn, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri K.N.Dhandapani, CIT
Section 250

250 passed by NFAC, Delhi and assessee vide CO No.56/Chny/2024 for AY 2015- 16 has contested order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1062081250 dated 06.03.2024 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [herein after “CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Center[NFAC], Delhi for AY- 2015-16. For the purposes of convenience all the aboves appeals are taken by way of this common order

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. CHARUMATHY SESHADRI, CHENNAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is treated as partly allowed for

ITA 886/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. N.R. Govindarajan, CA &
Section 139Section 54F

250/- on an investment made in a new asset for Rs. 2.6 crores. The Assessing Officer found her investment as under : (i) Investment in 1.25 acres nanja land at Ottiampakkam village in Kacheepuram district Rs. 2,20,00,000/- (ii) Expenditure incurred for registration Rs. 17,20,167/- Total investment in1.25 acres nanja land Rs. 2,37,20,167/- Investment

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)

250 2,33,18,972 in cash or in Kind Loan to Employees 36,02,637 19,90,772 Travel Advance 4,05,159 2,41,495 Total 229,49,37,716 179,88,55,612 On perusal of above schedule, I have noticed that first two columns are in the nature of housing loans. Therefore, I find

ITO, CHENNAI vs. RETTANAI GOVINDAN MUNUSWAMY, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 1085/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jul 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri. G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1085/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-2012

For Respondent: Shri. R. Viswanathan, C.A
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 54Section 54(2)Section 54F

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’). ITA No.1085/Mds/2016. :- 2 -: 2. The Department has raised the following grounds of appeal:- ‘’2.2. The CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee had neither Invested the capital gain arising out of the transfer of the long term capital asset for construction/ purchase

LATE S. YOGARATHINAM, REP. BY L/H Y. SHANMUGA DURAI,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 626/CHNY/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:626/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 Shri Y. Shanmuga Durai, L/H Of Acit Late S.Yogarathinam Vs. Circle -1(2) Old No.24, No.14, Chennai. 17/24, Ramanathan Street, T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017. Pan: Aakpy-9845-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Mr. Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.03.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.03.2025

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. AR.V. Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 122Section 2(47)Section 250Section 45Section 47

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, relevant to the Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The legal heir of the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. The order of the CIT (Appeals) -18, Chennai dated 12.01.2024 vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/APL/M/250/2023-24/1059642460(1) for the above mentioned Assessment Year is contrary to law, fact and in circumstances

VARADAPPAN NATARAJAN,RASIPURAM vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, SALEM

In the result, both the appeals of assessee in ITA No

ITA 1535/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1535 & 1801/Chny/2024 ननिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2015-16 V. Varadappan Natarajan/ The Acit, V. Natarajan (Individual), Central Circle, No.64-C, Rotary Nagar, Salem. Rasipuram Tamil Nadu-637 408. [Pan: Acgpn1477Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, Fca (Virtual) प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2025 घोर्णाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2025

For Appellant: Mr.T.S. LakshmiFor Respondent: Mr.Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 250(6)Section 37Section 68

House property. Therefore, claim of appellant that just because AO happened to not make disallowance during previous year, same disallowance can't be made for current year does not sound reasonable. Therefore, I am of considered view that AO has correctly made disallowance of interest Rs.14,94,644/- which has no nexus with earning ITA Nos.1535 & 1801/Chny/2024