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.

14 results for “house property”+ Section 457clear

Sorted by relevance

Karnataka290Delhi179Mumbai133Bangalore73Cochin58Ahmedabad35Jaipur24Kolkata20Chennai14Chandigarh11Lucknow10Hyderabad8Indore8Telangana6Guwahati5Agra3Pune2Raipur2SC1Surat1Dehradun1Rajasthan1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 1112Section 270A10Section 12A8Section 13(1)8Section 80G8Section 687Section 1476Section 54F6Addition to Income5Capital Gains

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

section shall apply where— (a) the assessee,— (i) owns more than one residential house, other than the new asset, on the date of transfer of the original asset; or (ii) purchases any residential house, other than the new asset, within a period of one year after the date of transfer of the original asset; or (iii) constructs any residential house

5
Exemption5
Deduction5

M/S. DARWYN & VALE ASSOCIATES,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-1(2), CHENNAI

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

ITA 1081/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1081/Chny/2025 िनधा8रण वष8 /Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri K.Sudarshan, C.A GHFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 270ASection 274

house property”. The A.O also initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 270A of the Act for underreporting of income by issuing notice u/s 274 of the Act. As the assessee did not respond to the said notice, the A.O passed an ex- parte order levying penalty of Rs.8,78,457/- in respect of the underreported income. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal

D. RAJARAM, REP BY S. DHANDAPANI(POWER HOLDER),COIMBATORE vs. ITO, INTNL TAXATION WARD, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 233/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.233/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri D. Rajaram, The Income Tax Officer, Represented By S. Dhandapani Vs. International Taxation Ward, (Power Holder), Coimbatore. Old No.21G, New No.35, Rangasamy Colony, 2Nd Street, Selvapuram, Coimbatore. [Pan: Akmpr-4391-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri R. Mohan Reddy,Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01.08.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02.08.2023

For Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy,CIT
Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

house property at Rs. :- 3 -: 67,200/-. The Ld. counsel for the assessee now before us raised the issue that once there is no addition on the issue of reopening and reasons recorded, no addition can be made on other issues unless and until addition is made on the reasons recorded. For this, the ld. counsel for the assessee relied

M/S. TAJMAHAL AGRO INDUSTRIES (P) LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2004-05 & 2006-07 are partly allowed and the appeal for assessment year 2007-08 is dismissed

ITA 1874/CHNY/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Sept 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: 11.06.2019
Section 50CSection 80G

house property, only a deduction of 30% of the income is allowed whereas in this case the AO has allowed deduction of 75%, which the Ld. CIT(A) has considered as very fair and reasonable. The Ld. AR pleaded that the AO erred in estimating the lease rental income @ 25% on the gross receipts ignoring both the direct and indirect

M/S. TAJMAHAL AGRO INDUSTRIES (P) LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2004-05 & 2006-07 are partly allowed and the appeal for assessment year 2007-08 is dismissed

ITA 1872/CHNY/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Sept 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: 11.06.2019
Section 50CSection 80G

house property, only a deduction of 30% of the income is allowed whereas in this case the AO has allowed deduction of 75%, which the Ld. CIT(A) has considered as very fair and reasonable. The Ld. AR pleaded that the AO erred in estimating the lease rental income @ 25% on the gross receipts ignoring both the direct and indirect

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. TAJMAHAL AGRO INDUSTRIES PVT LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2004-05 & 2006-07 are partly allowed and the appeal for assessment year 2007-08 is dismissed

ITA 1940/CHNY/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Sept 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: 11.06.2019
Section 50CSection 80G

house property, only a deduction of 30% of the income is allowed whereas in this case the AO has allowed deduction of 75%, which the Ld. CIT(A) has considered as very fair and reasonable. The Ld. AR pleaded that the AO erred in estimating the lease rental income @ 25% on the gross receipts ignoring both the direct and indirect

M/S. TAJMAHAL AGRO INDUSTRIES (P) LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2004-05 & 2006-07 are partly allowed and the appeal for assessment year 2007-08 is dismissed

ITA 1873/CHNY/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Sept 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: 11.06.2019
Section 50CSection 80G

house property, only a deduction of 30% of the income is allowed whereas in this case the AO has allowed deduction of 75%, which the Ld. CIT(A) has considered as very fair and reasonable. The Ld. AR pleaded that the AO erred in estimating the lease rental income @ 25% on the gross receipts ignoring both the direct and indirect

KAMALAKANNAN P,CHENNAI vs. ITO, BW XV(4), CHENNAI

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

ITA 50/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.50/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Mr.B.Suresh, CAFor Respondent: Mr.G.Johnson, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 27(1)(c)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 68BSection 69Section 69B

457/- and considering the explanation being his personal saving @ 40%, out of the same i.e. Rs.7,32,183/- and thereby, adding this amount of Rs.10,98,274/-. The AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. Aggrieved against quantum addition, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) in ITA No.35/2014-15/2011- 12/CIT

PADMANABHAN SRIRAMULU,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CORP. CIRCLE-6(1), CHENNAI

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

ITA 2963/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2963/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Padmanabhan Sriramulu, The Assistant Commissioner Of 77/1, Thirupalli Street, Vs. Income Tax, Sowcarpet, Non-Corporate Circle 6(1), Room No.223, 2Nd Floor, Chennai – 600 079. Bsnl Tower Ii, No.16, Greams Road, Chennai – 600 006. [Pan: Abhps-7297-P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Anandd Babunath, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Keerthi Narayanan, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

house property. The return of income was processed u/s.143(1) of the Act and subsequently the return was selected for scrutiny assessment under CASS to verify cash deposit during the year. Accordingly, notices u/s.143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued to the assessee calling for source for cash deposits for each bank account separately during

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

457 2004-05 25,83,90,789 8,71,65,250 34,55,56,039 2003-04 17,82,68,

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

457 2004-05 25,83,90,789 8,71,65,250 34,55,56,039 2003-04 17,82,68,

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

457 2004-05 25,83,90,789 8,71,65,250 34,55,56,039 2003-04 17,82,68,

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

457 2004-05 25,83,90,789 8,71,65,250 34,55,56,039 2003-04 17,82,68,

PARRY INFRASTRUCTURE CO P LTD. ,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 5(1) , CHENNAI

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

ITA 1653/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Philip George, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

house of the Murugappa group. 15.1 Further, the CIT(A) held that in the assessment year 2012- 2013, a sum of Rs.12,81,22,208/- had already been debited and claimed and therefore only a further sum of Rs.81,77,792/- was allowable towards the total cost of construction and only that was allowable in this year. The balance