Search: house property | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

218 results for “house property”

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,410 Delhi1,881 Supreme Court1,540 Chennai589 Bangalore577 Jaipur562 Hyderabad510 Ahmedabad377 Pune373 Kolkata292 Chandigarh289 Cochin218 Indore211 Visakhapatnam124 Surat120 Rajkot118 Raipur104 Nagpur103 Amritsar96 Lucknow90 Patna83 Agra72 Cuttack51 Jodhpur50 Guwahati36 Dehradun24 Allahabad18 Jabalpur17 Ranchi15 Varanasi12 Panaji11

Key Topics

Section 25071 Section 153A45 Section 143(3)40 Addition to Income40 Section 6934 Section 54F29 House Property20 Section 13219 Section 143(2)17

THE ACIT, CORP CIRCLE-1(2), KOCHI vs. M/S.KNOWELL REALTORS INDIA P. LTD, KOCHI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals are allowed

ITA 192/COCH/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Santosh P. Abraham, AdvFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamuna Devi, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 268A

house property and business income respectively, and read as under: Income from house property. 22. The annual value of property

THE ACIT, CORP CIRCLE-1(2), KOCHI vs. M/S.KNOWELL REALTORS INDIA P. LTD, KOCHI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals are allowed

ITA 193/COCH/2019[2015-16]Status: Disposed

Showing 1–20 of 218 · Page 1 of 11

...

ITAT Cochin

25 Sept 2023

AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Santosh P. Abraham, AdvFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamuna Devi, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 268A

house property and business income respectively, and read as under: Income from house property. 22. The annual value of property

THRISSUR DISTRICT POLICE CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THRISSUR

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

ITA 408/COCH/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri M.Ramdas, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. A.R

Section 154Section 250Section 253(5)

House Property i) Net Income House Property to be calculated as per the provisions of section 22 -27 of the Act. Income

THRISSUR DISTRICT POLICE CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THRISSUR

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

ITA 409/COCH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri M.Ramdas, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. A.R

Section 154Section 250Section 253(5)

House Property i) Net Income House Property to be calculated as per the provisions of section 22 -27 of the Act. Income

PANICHIKANDY MOHANDASAN,KASARGOD vs. THE DCIT, KANNUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 48/COCH/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Assessment Year: 2016-17 Panichikandy Mohandasan .......... Appellant Kanhangad, Hosdurg, Kasaragod 671315 [Pan: Advpm0383N] Vs. Dy Commissioner Of Income Tax .......... Respondent Kannur Appellant By: Shri Arun Raj S., Advocate Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 10.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.03.2025

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

house property income. The AO merely disallowed the loss claimed under the head ‘house property’ by holding that the building

SHAHUL HAMEED,MANANTHAVADY vs. ITO, WARD-2, KALPETTA

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 355/COCH/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Mar 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR

Section 115Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250Section 69

House Property” against the addition 2 ITA No.355/Coch/2024. Sri.Sahul Hameed. made under section 69 of the Act by applying the provisions

SMT. MARIES JOSEPH,THRISSUR vs. DCIT, INT. TAXATION, KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 566/COCH/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 Jan 2023AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri. Arun Raj S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr AR

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 54F

house property at ‘Skyline Infinity’, Thrissur for the AY 2015-16.; is illegal, arbitrary and unjustified. 2. The CIT (Appeals

SMT. MARIES JOSEPH,THRISSUR vs. DCIT, INT. TAXATION, KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 613/COCH/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 Jan 2023AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri. Arun Raj S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr AR

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 54F

house property at ‘Skyline Infinity’, Thrissur for the AY 2015-16.; is illegal, arbitrary and unjustified. 2. The CIT (Appeals

PUTHIRI VINCENT THOMAS ,THODUPUZHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THODUPUZHA

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

ITA 246/COCH/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2010-11 Puthiri Vincent Thomas .......... Appellant Xxiii/249 A, Puthiri House Thodupuzha P.O., Idukki 685584 [Pan: Agwpv7187P] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Thodupuzha .......... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 64

house property’ assessed 50% of income from property. Thus he made addition of Rs. 2,40,000/-. 4. Being aggrieved

M/S PERINGATTU HEALTH FOUNDATION PRIVATE,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 2(3), KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 23/COCH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Appellant: Smt. Parvathi Ammal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR

Section 12Section 143(3)Section 22Section 24(1)(b)

house property is to be reckoned, it is thus a separate property, independent of others, as indeed is each of the other

INFOPARKS KERALA,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE JT DIRECTOR OF IT (OSD) EXEM), COCHIN

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 76/COCH/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr.AR

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

house property’ (IFHP), and cannot be treated as business income. Reliance stood also placed by it on the decisions in Addl.CIT

INFOPARKS KERALA,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE JT DIRECTOR OF IT (OSD) EXEM), COCHIN

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 75/COCH/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr.AR

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

house property’ (IFHP), and cannot be treated as business income. Reliance stood also placed by it on the decisions in Addl.CIT

INFOPARKS KERALA,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 77/COCH/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr.AR

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

house property’ (IFHP), and cannot be treated as business income. Reliance stood also placed by it on the decisions in Addl.CIT

A K SANTHOSH,KOCHI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 174/COCH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin18 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Sreenivasan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. DR

Section 24Section 40Section 57

House property instead of income from other source was not justified as the appellant had an option u/s 57 to show

A K SANTHOSH,KOCHI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 173/COCH/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin18 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Sreenivasan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. DR

Section 24Section 40Section 57

House property instead of income from other source was not justified as the appellant had an option u/s 57 to show

PANICHIKANDY MOHANDASAN,KASARGOD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1,KANNUR RANGE, KANNUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 605/COCH/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

house property income. The AO merely disallowed the loss claimed under the head ‘house property’ by holding that the building

MOOLADETH FATHIMA NOOR,CALICUT vs. ITO, WARD 1(3), CALICUT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 312/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2014-15 Mooladeth Fathima Noor .......... Appellant Noor Mahal, Devagiri, Medical College Calicut 673008 [Pan: Abzpf8525H] Vs. The Income Tax Officer,Wd-1(3), Calicut .......... Respondent Appellant By: ------- None ------- Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2025

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54F

property sold into residential house and land. In respect of residential house the appellant claimed deduction u/s. 54, which was allowed

JAGADISH KUMAR P.V (LEGAL HEIR OF LATE REMA PADMAJA BAI),TRIVANDRUM vs. ACIT CIRCLE 2(1) , TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 376/COCH/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Dr. S. Seethalakshmijagadish Kumar P.V. Asst. Cit, Circle - 2(1) (L/H Of Rema Padmaja Bai) Thiruvananthapuram Sree, T.C. 50/899(1), Kalady Vs. Hsra A-56, Karamana P.O. Thiruvananthapuram [Pan:Aempp5283J] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Raja Kannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 69

house property, as per the details provided by the assessee to the Assessing Officer (AO), was thus as under: - Housing

TRESA JOLLY,ERNAKULAM vs. DCIT , INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, KOCHI

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

ITA 230/COCH/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin18 Jul 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Sri.Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Ms.V.Swarnalatha, Senior DR

Section 143(2)Section 80C

house property and deduction u/s.80C of the Act in the revised return, but the Assessing Officer (AO) had not accepted

KUMAR MADHAVANPILLAI.S,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ITO, WARD-1(4), TRIVANDRUM

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

ITA 461/COCH/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Oct 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Kumar Madhavanpillai S. Income Tax Officer -1(4) Chandra Press & Book Depot Aayakar Bhavan, Kowdiar P.O. Manjalikulam Road Thiruvananthapuram 695003 Vs. Thampanoor Thiruvananthapuram 695001 [Pan: Ajxps9299P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Anil Krishnan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Girly Albert, Sr. D.R

Section 50Section 54

property should be a residential house. The expression residential house has not been defined in the Act. The popular meaning