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.

134 results for “house property”+ Section 271(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai959Delhi928Karnataka455Jaipur267Ahmedabad219Bangalore181Chennai134Chandigarh82Indore82Pune82Kolkata81Hyderabad69Visakhapatnam56Calcutta50Raipur40Lucknow35Cochin31Surat30Nagpur29Rajkot25Guwahati23Amritsar19Agra10Telangana9Cuttack8SC8Allahabad5Rajasthan5Patna4Ranchi4Jodhpur3Dehradun2Panaji1Varanasi1Punjab & Haryana1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)88Addition to Income61Section 143(3)49Penalty44Section 54F43Section 5432Section 271D32Section 153C31Section 270A31

DCIT, CENTRALCIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI vs. SUBRAMANIAM THANU, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Cross

ITA 788/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.785, 786, 787 & 788/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 & C.O. Nos. 40, 41, 42 & 43/Chny/2023 (In I.T.A. Nos.785 To 788/Chny/2023)

For Respondent: Shri A. Sasi Kumar, CIT
Section 132Section 269SSection 269TSection 271(1)(c)Section 271DSection 271E

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. Thus, the penalty under section 271D was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied. The issue is, therefore, covered in favour of the assessee by judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills (supra). We accordingly set aside the orders

Showing 1–20 of 134 · Page 1 of 7

Section 13226
Deduction26
Exemption22

DCIT, CENTRALCIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI vs. SUBRAMANIAM THANU, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Cross

ITA 786/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.785, 786, 787 & 788/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 & C.O. Nos. 40, 41, 42 & 43/Chny/2023 (In I.T.A. Nos.785 To 788/Chny/2023)

For Respondent: Shri A. Sasi Kumar, CIT
Section 132Section 269SSection 269TSection 271(1)(c)Section 271DSection 271E

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. Thus, the penalty under section 271D was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied. The issue is, therefore, covered in favour of the assessee by judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills (supra). We accordingly set aside the orders

DCIT, CENTRALCIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI vs. SUBRAMANIAM THANU, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Cross

ITA 787/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.785, 786, 787 & 788/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 & C.O. Nos. 40, 41, 42 & 43/Chny/2023 (In I.T.A. Nos.785 To 788/Chny/2023)

For Respondent: Shri A. Sasi Kumar, CIT
Section 132Section 269SSection 269TSection 271(1)(c)Section 271DSection 271E

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. Thus, the penalty under section 271D was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied. The issue is, therefore, covered in favour of the assessee by judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills (supra). We accordingly set aside the orders

DCIT, CENTRALCIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI vs. SUBRAMANIAM THANU, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Cross

ITA 785/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.785, 786, 787 & 788/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 & C.O. Nos. 40, 41, 42 & 43/Chny/2023 (In I.T.A. Nos.785 To 788/Chny/2023)

For Respondent: Shri A. Sasi Kumar, CIT
Section 132Section 269SSection 269TSection 271(1)(c)Section 271DSection 271E

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. Thus, the penalty under section 271D was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied. The issue is, therefore, covered in favour of the assessee by judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills (supra). We accordingly set aside the orders

VIPIN KUMAR,HOSUR vs. ITO, SALEM

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

ITA 487/CHNY/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.487/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 Shri Vipin Kumar, The Income Tax Officer, Hig – 5, Avalapalli Housing Board, V. Central Circle, Brindavan Nagar, Phase Vii,Tnhb Salem. Hosur – 636 109. Pan : Aafpb 9262 Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Lakshmichand Nahata, FCAFor Respondent: Shri A.V. Sreekanth, JCIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)

Housing Board, v. Central Circle, Brindavan Nagar, Phase VII,TNHB Salem. Hosur – 636 109. PAN : AAFPB 9262 Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri Lakshmichand Nahata, FCA ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Shri A.V. Sreekanth, JCIT सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 05.05.2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 15.07.2016 आदेश

D.HARINDRAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 233/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Sept 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Shri D.Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.V.Sreekanth, JCIT
Section 271Section 4Section 54

property tax was paid for the super structure and there was no building in the nature of the residential house. Therefore, the assessing officer found that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars for the purpose of claiming deduction under Section 54/54F. Accordingly, the assessing officer levied penalty under Section 271(1

JAY FARM HOUSE,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 308/CHNY/2011[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Nov 2016AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri G.Seetharaman, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Shri T.R.Senthil Kumar, Standing Counsel
Section 271(1)(b)Section 69A

House, The Assistant Commissioner of No.18, Balamuthukrishnan Street, v. Income-tax, T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. Central Circle II(2), Chennai – 600 034. PAN: AAB FJ 6822 G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं /Appellant by : Shri G.Seetharaman, Chartered Accountant ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Shri T.R.Senthil Kumar, Standing Counsel सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 23.08.2016 घोषणा

JAY FARM HOUSE,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 306/CHNY/2011[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Nov 2016AY 1995-96

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri G.Seetharaman, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Shri T.R.Senthil Kumar, Standing Counsel
Section 271(1)(b)Section 69A

House, The Assistant Commissioner of No.18, Balamuthukrishnan Street, v. Income-tax, T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. Central Circle II(2), Chennai – 600 034. PAN: AAB FJ 6822 G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं /Appellant by : Shri G.Seetharaman, Chartered Accountant ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Shri T.R.Senthil Kumar, Standing Counsel सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 23.08.2016 घोषणा

M/S. J FARM HOUSE,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 309/CHNY/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Nov 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri G.Seetharaman, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Shri T.R.Senthil Kumar, Standing Counsel
Section 271(1)(b)Section 69A

House, The Assistant Commissioner of No.18, Balamuthukrishnan Street, v. Income-tax, T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. Central Circle II(2), Chennai – 600 034. PAN: AAB FJ 6822 G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं /Appellant by : Shri G.Seetharaman, Chartered Accountant ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Shri T.R.Senthil Kumar, Standing Counsel सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 23.08.2016 घोषणा

JAY FARM HOUSE,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 307/CHNY/2011[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Nov 2016AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri G.Seetharaman, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Shri T.R.Senthil Kumar, Standing Counsel
Section 271(1)(b)Section 69A

House, The Assistant Commissioner of No.18, Balamuthukrishnan Street, v. Income-tax, T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. Central Circle II(2), Chennai – 600 034. PAN: AAB FJ 6822 G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं /Appellant by : Shri G.Seetharaman, Chartered Accountant ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Shri T.R.Senthil Kumar, Standing Counsel सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 23.08.2016 घोषणा

M/S. R R INDUSTRIES LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2741/CHNY/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Feb 2026AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy. S

For Appellant: Mr.M.K. Rangaswamy, CAFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 274

house property' and thereby disallowing exemption claimed u/s 10A of Rs.90,37,808/-. Consequently, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were also initiated by the AO. The quantum assessment was taken up in first appeal by the assessee and the issue of treating rental income from IT Park as business income and consequently the claim of exemption

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

house property income and huge long term capital gain and even after receiving notice under section 148 of the Act, the assessee has filed her return of income admitting only ₹. 2,15,130/- as income as against income admitted during the course of assessment proceedings of ₹.1,92,62,150/-. In view of the above and since 4 I.T.A. No.779/Chny/19

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

271. However, according to him, the acquisition could not come through, due to zone ITA Nos2125 to 2128 :- 39 -: & 2219 to 2222 /2017 conversion problem. As per the ld. Authorised Representative, intention of the assessee was to start its MBA course in this property, since Chamiers Road property was not available. According to him Shri. V. Sampath had refunded

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

271. However, according to him, the acquisition could not come through, due to zone ITA Nos2125 to 2128 :- 39 -: & 2219 to 2222 /2017 conversion problem. As per the ld. Authorised Representative, intention of the assessee was to start its MBA course in this property, since Chamiers Road property was not available. According to him Shri. V. Sampath had refunded

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

271. However, according to him, the acquisition could not come through, due to zone ITA Nos2125 to 2128 :- 39 -: & 2219 to 2222 /2017 conversion problem. As per the ld. Authorised Representative, intention of the assessee was to start its MBA course in this property, since Chamiers Road property was not available. According to him Shri. V. Sampath had refunded

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

271. However, according to him, the acquisition could not come through, due to zone ITA Nos2125 to 2128 :- 39 -: & 2219 to 2222 /2017 conversion problem. As per the ld. Authorised Representative, intention of the assessee was to start its MBA course in this property, since Chamiers Road property was not available. According to him Shri. V. Sampath had refunded

J.RAVICHANDRAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 555/CHNY/2016[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Nov 2016AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D. S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.555/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2001-02 Mr. J.Ravichandran Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.3/50, Lakshmi Talkies Road, Business Ward Xiv (1) Shenoy Nagar, Chennai – 600 034 Chennai – 600 006 [Pan: Aafpr2178D]

For Appellant: Shri Ananddev Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shiva Srinivas, JCIT
Section 24Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). 2. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee has made the claim of interest on borrowings for renovation of house :: 2 :: property

C.ELANGO,TIRUPPUR vs. ACIT, TIRUPPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 118/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri R. Durai Pandian, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(3)Section 54F

271(1) is applicable to the assessee. In penalty proceedings, the Ld. AR of the assessee filed detailed reply to show cause notice and explained that the assessee has sold land and net consideration is invested in construction of Residential house and claimed exemption u/s. 54F of the Act. The lands were purchased from the agriculturalist/farmers who does not have

IRIS ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES P LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

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

ITA 1437/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1437/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 M/S. Iris Engineering Industries Pvt. The Assistant Commissioner Of Ltd., (Now Known As M/S. Ravilla Vs. Income Tax, Corporate Circle 2, Aerospace Industries P. Ltd.), No. 178, Coimbatore. Aerodrome Road, Singanallur, Coimbatore 641 005. [Pan:Aaaci8996G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Dr. S. Palani Kumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 21.03.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.06.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao,: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Coimbatore Dated 31.03.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13 In Confirming The Levy Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. S. Palani Kumar, CIT
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

property to M/s. Lakshmi Machine Works Ltd. for a total consideration of ₹.8.52 crores. Based on the findings of the survey and the materials unearthed during the proceedings, notice under section 148 of the Act was issued since there was reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment within the meaning of provisions of section

HOTEL SARAVANA BHAVAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), CHENNAI

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

ITA 474/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.474/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Vs The Acit, M/S. Hotel Saravana Bhavan, C/O. Shri.T.N. Seetharaman, Central Circle 1(3), Advocate, Chennai – 34. #384, (Old No.196), Lloyds Road, Chennai – 600 086. Pan: Aabfh 3049M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri T.N. Seetharaman, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Bharath,Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26.08.2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.11.2019 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri T.N. Seetharaman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Bharath,CIT
Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271ASection 273B

house property before the due date of filing the return. The Hon’ble High Court held that “Sub-Section (4) of section 139 provides the extended period of limitation as an exception to sub-section (1) of section 139 of the Act. Sub-section (4) was in relation to the time allowed to an assessee under sub-section (1