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.

12 results for “house property”+ Section 36(1)(viia)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai85Chandigarh49Delhi27Bangalore16Chennai12Cuttack10Amritsar8Cochin7Visakhapatnam5Hyderabad4Pune4Ahmedabad3Kolkata3Jaipur2Lucknow1J&K1Allahabad1Raipur1SC1Indore1

Key Topics

Section 14A26Section 4021Disallowance11Section 566Section 2635Section 56(2)4Section 56(2)(vii)4Section 143(3)4Section 364Addition to Income

THE KARUR VYSYA BANK LTD.,KARUR vs. JCIT, TRICHY

Accordingly, the claim of the assessee that it had to be allowed on actual payment basis was, in our opinion, rightly allowed by the CIT(Appeals)

ITA 2325/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Pathlavath Peerya, CIT
Section 14A

viia). 10.2. The learned Assessing Officer failed to appreciate the fact that the Rule 6ABA does not prescribe only incremental advances are to be considered for arriving at the Aggregate Average Advances.” 18. In our opinion, irrespective of the fact whether computation made by the Assessing Officer is having an effect on the taxable income of the assessee

THE KARUR VYSYA BANK LTD.,KARUR vs. JCIT, TRICHY

Accordingly, the claim of the assessee that it had to be allowed on actual payment basis was, in our opinion, rightly allowed by the CIT(Appeals)

4
Deduction4
TDS3
ITA 2326/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Mar 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Pathlavath Peerya, CIT
Section 14A

viia). 10.2. The learned Assessing Officer failed to appreciate the fact that the Rule 6ABA does not prescribe only incremental advances are to be considered for arriving at the Aggregate Average Advances.” 18. In our opinion, irrespective of the fact whether computation made by the Assessing Officer is having an effect on the taxable income of the assessee

DCIT, TRICHY vs. THE KARUR VYSYA BANK LTD., KARUR

Accordingly, the claim of the assessee that it had to be allowed on actual payment basis was, in our opinion, rightly allowed by the CIT(Appeals)

ITA 2433/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Pathlavath Peerya, CIT
Section 14A

viia). 10.2. The learned Assessing Officer failed to appreciate the fact that the Rule 6ABA does not prescribe only incremental advances are to be considered for arriving at the Aggregate Average Advances.” 18. In our opinion, irrespective of the fact whether computation made by the Assessing Officer is having an effect on the taxable income of the assessee

DCIT, TRICHY vs. M/S. THE KARUR VYSYA BANK. LTD., KARUR

Accordingly, the claim of the assessee that it had to be allowed on actual payment basis was, in our opinion, rightly allowed by the CIT(Appeals)

ITA 2649/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Mar 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Pathlavath Peerya, CIT
Section 14A

viia). 10.2. The learned Assessing Officer failed to appreciate the fact that the Rule 6ABA does not prescribe only incremental advances are to be considered for arriving at the Aggregate Average Advances.” 18. In our opinion, irrespective of the fact whether computation made by the Assessing Officer is having an effect on the taxable income of the assessee

SHRIRAM OWNERSHIP TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both

ITA 407/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 May 2017AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 406 & 407/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-2014 & 2014-2015. Shriram Ownership Trust, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No.4, Shriram House, I Floor, Income Tax, Burkit Road, T. Nagar, Non Corporate Circle 2, Chennai 600 017. Chennai 600 034. [Pan Aagts 2243H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Shaji P. Jacob, IRS, Addl. CIT
Section 144ASection 14ASection 160(1)Section 161(1)Section 2(31)Section 56Section 56(1)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

House, I floor, Income Tax, Burkit Road, T. Nagar, Non Corporate Circle 2, Chennai 600 017. Chennai 600 034. [PAN AAGTS 2243H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri. R. Sivaraman, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent by : Shri. Shaji P. Jacob, IRS, Addl. CIT. : 22-06-2017 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing घोषणा

SHRIRAM OWNERSHIP TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both

ITA 406/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 May 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 406 & 407/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-2014 & 2014-2015. Shriram Ownership Trust, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No.4, Shriram House, I Floor, Income Tax, Burkit Road, T. Nagar, Non Corporate Circle 2, Chennai 600 017. Chennai 600 034. [Pan Aagts 2243H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Shaji P. Jacob, IRS, Addl. CIT
Section 144ASection 14ASection 160(1)Section 161(1)Section 2(31)Section 56Section 56(1)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

House, I floor, Income Tax, Burkit Road, T. Nagar, Non Corporate Circle 2, Chennai 600 017. Chennai 600 034. [PAN AAGTS 2243H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri. R. Sivaraman, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent by : Shri. Shaji P. Jacob, IRS, Addl. CIT. : 22-06-2017 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing घोषणा

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. GREEN HOUSE PROMOTERS PRIVATE LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 1796/CHNY/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jun 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 1785, 1796 & 1828/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2010-11, 2011-12 & 2009-2010. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income M/S. Green House Promoters Tax Vs. Pvt. Ltd, Company Circle Ii(1) No.4,Rama Rao Street, Chennai. T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan Aaccg 2333B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Supriyo Pal, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. Y. Sridhar, C.A
Section 194CSection 40Section 4U

Housing Private Limited -ITA No.1097(Mad.)/2011 dated 21.03.2103, purchase cost of the lands in a real estate business can be treated as exempted under the Rule 6DD and hence cannot be subjected to the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act. In view of the decision of the Tribunal in the above case, ld. Commissioner of Income

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. GREEN HOUSE PROMOTERS PRIVATE LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 1828/CHNY/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jun 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 1785, 1796 & 1828/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2010-11, 2011-12 & 2009-2010. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income M/S. Green House Promoters Tax Vs. Pvt. Ltd, Company Circle Ii(1) No.4,Rama Rao Street, Chennai. T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan Aaccg 2333B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Supriyo Pal, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. Y. Sridhar, C.A
Section 194CSection 40Section 4U

Housing Private Limited -ITA No.1097(Mad.)/2011 dated 21.03.2103, purchase cost of the lands in a real estate business can be treated as exempted under the Rule 6DD and hence cannot be subjected to the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act. In view of the decision of the Tribunal in the above case, ld. Commissioner of Income

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. GREEN HOUSE PROMOTERS P. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 1785/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jun 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 1785, 1796 & 1828/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2010-11, 2011-12 & 2009-2010. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income M/S. Green House Promoters Tax Vs. Pvt. Ltd, Company Circle Ii(1) No.4,Rama Rao Street, Chennai. T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan Aaccg 2333B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Supriyo Pal, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. Y. Sridhar, C.A
Section 194CSection 40Section 4U

Housing Private Limited -ITA No.1097(Mad.)/2011 dated 21.03.2103, purchase cost of the lands in a real estate business can be treated as exempted under the Rule 6DD and hence cannot be subjected to the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act. In view of the decision of the Tribunal in the above case, ld. Commissioner of Income

SEVUGAN PETHAPERUMAL,MADURAI vs. PCIT, MADURAI-1,, MADURAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1196/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1196/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2020-21 Sevugan Pethaperumal, Principal Commissioner Of Income No.41, First Main Street, Tax, Narayanapuram West, Madurai-1, Madurai, Madurai. Tamil Nadu-625 014. [Pan: Afjpp5984J] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri G.Tarun, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Bipin C.N, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.08.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri G.Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263

house property and was wrongly offered as income from other sources. While doing so, reliance was placed upon certain judicial precedents on the subject. In para 11 of his order, he concluded that the Ld.AO has failed to do requisite enquiries and verification into the issue and hence the order passed by him falls into the category of the same

DCIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE I, CHENNAI vs. JAIN HOUSING, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 337/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri. R. Clement RameshFor Respondent: Shri. M. Karunakaran, Adv
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)Section 56Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viia)

Housing is a Partnership firm constituted under the Partnership Act and engaged in the business of property development. The return of income for the assessment year 2013-2014 was filed on 30.09.2013 disclosing total income of Rs.65,98,36,420/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income, Central Circle-1(1

DCIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE I, CHENNAI vs. JAIN HOUSING, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 338/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Aug 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri. R. Clement RameshFor Respondent: Shri. M. Karunakaran, Adv
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)Section 56Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viia)

Housing is a Partnership firm constituted under the Partnership Act and engaged in the business of property development. The return of income for the assessment year 2013-2014 was filed on 30.09.2013 disclosing total income of Rs.65,98,36,420/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income, Central Circle-1(1