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.

5 results for “house property”+ Section 43Dclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai37Delhi23Bangalore20Hyderabad17Ahmedabad7Chennai5Surat5SC3Pune2Telangana1Chandigarh1Karnataka1Rajkot1

Key Topics

Section 14A20Disallowance5Section 44A2

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

property. Assessee was always obliged to pay the amount either to the beneficiary or the original drawer. Assessee held the money only as a trustee in fiduciary capacity. Once the money is held as trustee, the question of limitation will not arise at all. In any case, RBI itself has issued a Notification on 24.05.2014 mandating the banks to transfer

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 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

property. Assessee was always obliged to pay the amount either to the beneficiary or the original drawer. Assessee held the money only as a trustee in fiduciary capacity. Once the money is held as trustee, the question of limitation will not arise at all. In any case, RBI itself has issued a Notification on 24.05.2014 mandating the banks to transfer

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

property. Assessee was always obliged to pay the amount either to the beneficiary or the original drawer. Assessee held the money only as a trustee in fiduciary capacity. Once the money is held as trustee, the question of limitation will not arise at all. In any case, RBI itself has issued a Notification on 24.05.2014 mandating the banks to transfer

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

property. Assessee was always obliged to pay the amount either to the beneficiary or the original drawer. Assessee held the money only as a trustee in fiduciary capacity. Once the money is held as trustee, the question of limitation will not arise at all. In any case, RBI itself has issued a Notification on 24.05.2014 mandating the banks to transfer

DCIT, CC-2,, MADURAI vs. SHRI V. MANOHARAN,, RAMNAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3246/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3246/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 & C.O. No. 2/Chny/2021 [In I.T.A. No.3246/Chny/2019] The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Shri V. Manoharan, Income Tax, D. No. 99/2, Maharnonbu Ground Road, Central Circle 2, Madurai. Near Velumanickam Theatre, Ramnad 632 501. [Pan: Acspm0189J] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) Department By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit Assessee By : None सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27.06.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.07.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: The Appeal Filed By The Revenue & The Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 19, Chennai, Dated 14.08.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2016-17. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Is Erroneous On Facts Of The Case & In Law.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 10Section 132Section 142(1)Section 28Section 44A

43D as stipulated by Section 29 of the Act. The deduction on account of payment of interest in respect of capital borrowed is provided in Section-36(1). If a provision for deduction is allowable for the computation of income in the Act, then the same has to be allowed and there cannot be any alternate view on that account