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.

333 results for “house property”+ Addition to Incomeclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai5,283Delhi4,456Bangalore1,565Chennai1,265Jaipur888Hyderabad862Ahmedabad844Kolkata832Pune782Karnataka651Chandigarh486Indore346Surat339Cochin333Visakhapatnam302Amritsar178Telangana168Rajkot145Raipur140Lucknow131Nagpur127Cuttack125Agra94Patna78Jodhpur65Calcutta62SC51Guwahati51Dehradun42Allahabad37Ranchi29Varanasi25Rajasthan22Panaji14Kerala13Jabalpur11Orissa7Punjab & Haryana4Andhra Pradesh2Gauhati2J&K1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1ANIL R. DAVE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1

Key Topics

Section 26365Addition to Income58Section 153A55Section 143(3)45Section 25022Section 143(2)21Section 6821Section 13219Disallowance18Section 153C

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

income from house property; the line of difference being thin, is if the property leasing is an integral part of the assessee’s business, a manner of exploiting and realizing it’s value in his capacity as trader, which may or may not be in addition

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

Showing 1–20 of 333 · Page 1 of 17

...
17
Depreciation14
House Property13
ITA 193/COCH/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2023AY 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

income from house property; the line of difference being thin, is if the property leasing is an integral part of the assessee’s business, a manner of exploiting and realizing it’s value in his capacity as trader, which may or may not be in addition

M/S.OBERON EDIFICES & ESTATES P. LTD,,KOCHI vs. THE PR.CIT,, TRIVANDRUM

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

ITA 361/COCH/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. No. 361/Coch/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Oberon Edifices & Estates Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Oberon Mall, Income-Tax, Trivandrum. Nh Bye-Pass, Edapally, Kochi-682 024. [Pan:Aaaco 7942E]

Section 263

income from house property. 2. The facts of the case are that the shops in the building named ‘Oberon Mall’ had been let out to various persons doing business in the complex. Rent deposits were taken from the tenants in addition

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.MUTHOOTT MINI FINANCIERS P. LTD,KOZHENCHERRY vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2,, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical

ITA 279/COCH/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 14ASection 32

additional ground of the assessee is dismissed as not pressed. 3. The first common ground is with regard to depreciation on letting out of building for business purposes. 3.1 The facts of the case as narrated in ITA No. 277/Coch/2019 for the assessment year 2010-11 are that the assessee declared income from letting out property as income from business

M/S.MUTHOOTT MINI FINANCIERS P. LTD,KOZHENCHERRY vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2,, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical

ITA 277/COCH/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 14ASection 32

additional ground of the assessee is dismissed as not pressed. 3. The first common ground is with regard to depreciation on letting out of building for business purposes. 3.1 The facts of the case as narrated in ITA No. 277/Coch/2019 for the assessment year 2010-11 are that the assessee declared income from letting out property as income from business

M/S.MUTHOOTT MINI FINANCIERS P. LTD,KOZHENCHERRY vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2,, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical

ITA 278/COCH/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 14ASection 32

additional ground of the assessee is dismissed as not pressed. 3. The first common ground is with regard to depreciation on letting out of building for business purposes. 3.1 The facts of the case as narrated in ITA No. 277/Coch/2019 for the assessment year 2010-11 are that the assessee declared income from letting out property as income from business

M/S.WARRIERS HOSPITAL & PANCHAKARMA CENTRE,KOLLAM vs. THE DCIT, , ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical

ITA 460/COCH/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 24Section 30Section 31Section 32Section 38Section 56Section 56(2)(iii)Section 57

additional evidence. 4.4 It was submitted that the assessee had bona fide belief that the income of the assessee was wrongly offered under the head income from house property

M/S.WARRIERS HOSPITAL & PANCHAKARMA CENTRE,KAYAMKULAM vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical

ITA 616/COCH/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 24Section 30Section 31Section 32Section 38Section 56Section 56(2)(iii)Section 57

additional evidence. 4.4 It was submitted that the assessee had bona fide belief that the income of the assessee was wrongly offered under the head income from house property

M/S.WARRIERS HOSPITAL & PANCHAKARMA CENTRE,KAYAMKULAM vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical

ITA 615/COCH/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 24Section 30Section 31Section 32Section 38Section 56Section 56(2)(iii)Section 57

additional evidence. 4.4 It was submitted that the assessee had bona fide belief that the income of the assessee was wrongly offered under the head income from house property

M/S.WARRIERS HOSPITAL & PANCHAKARMA CENTRE,KOLLAM vs. THE DCIT, , ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical

ITA 461/COCH/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 24Section 30Section 31Section 32Section 38Section 56Section 56(2)(iii)Section 57

additional evidence. 4.4 It was submitted that the assessee had bona fide belief that the income of the assessee was wrongly offered under the head income from house property

THE ACIT, COCHIN vs. M/S.PTL ENTERPRISES LTD, COCHIN

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

ITA 84/COCH/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Jul 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Mritunjaya Sharma, CIT-DRFor Respondent: S/Sri.Joseph Marcose, Sr.Advocate &
Section 56(2)(ii)

Additional item claimed in computation of income xxiv) Bad debts written off 139.79 139.79 xxv) Doubtful advances written off 23.23 23.23 Xxvi Profit on sale of assets 8.60 8.60 Total (C) = (xxiv + xxv + xxvi) 171.62 171.62 Total (D) = (A+B+C) s1877.06 259.35 8.14. Having regard to the above, it is evident that, Assessing Officer has allowed expenditure under

THE ACIT, COCHIN vs. M/S.PTL ENTERPRISES LTD, COCHIN

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 161/COCH/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Alok MitraFor Respondent: Sri.Abraham Joseph Markose
Section 56(2)(ii)

Additional item claimed in computation of income xxiv) Bad debts written off 139.79 139.79 xxv) Doubtful advances written off 23.23 23.23 Xxvi Profit on sale of assets 8.60 8.60 Total (C) = (xxiv + xxv + xxvi) 171.62 171.62 Total (D) = (A+B+C) s1877.06 259.35 8.14. Having regard to the above, it is evident that, Assessing Officer has allowed expenditure under

THE ACIT, COCHIN vs. M/S.PTL ENTERPRISES LTD, COCHIN

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 160/COCH/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Alok MitraFor Respondent: Sri.Abraham Joseph Markose
Section 56(2)(ii)

Additional item claimed in computation of income xxiv) Bad debts written off 139.79 139.79 xxv) Doubtful advances written off 23.23 23.23 Xxvi Profit on sale of assets 8.60 8.60 Total (C) = (xxiv + xxv + xxvi) 171.62 171.62 Total (D) = (A+B+C) s1877.06 259.35 8.14. Having regard to the above, it is evident that, Assessing Officer has allowed expenditure under

THE ACIT, COCHIN vs. M/S.PTL ENTERPRISES LTD, COCHIN

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 162/COCH/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Alok MitraFor Respondent: Sri.Abraham Joseph Markose
Section 56(2)(ii)

Additional item claimed in computation of income xxiv) Bad debts written off 139.79 139.79 xxv) Doubtful advances written off 23.23 23.23 Xxvi Profit on sale of assets 8.60 8.60 Total (C) = (xxiv + xxv + xxvi) 171.62 171.62 Total (D) = (A+B+C) s1877.06 259.35 8.14. Having regard to the above, it is evident that, Assessing Officer has allowed expenditure under

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)

addition of ₹ 53,85,753/- was sustained. However, ongoing through the statement of total income submitted by the assessee before the learned CIT(A)/NFAC, we find the same as self-explanatory. Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that the net profit declared as a gross total income amounting to Rs. ITA Nos.408 & 409/Coch/2024 Thrissur District Police Cooperative Society

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)

addition of ₹ 53,85,753/- was sustained. However, ongoing through the statement of total income submitted by the assessee before the learned CIT(A)/NFAC, we find the same as self-explanatory. Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that the net profit declared as a gross total income amounting to Rs. ITA Nos.408 & 409/Coch/2024 Thrissur District Police Cooperative Society

M/S BEST BAKERY & ICE CREAM PARLOUR,ANGAMALLY vs. ACIT, ERNAKULAM

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

ITA 513/COCH/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Dec 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am &Shri George George K, Jm

For Respondent: Sri. Sudhanshu Shekhar Jha, CIT(DR)

House Property (as returned) :Rs.42,000 Income from business Loss admitted as per return (-):Rs. 7,323 Add: Undisclosed income (i) From Liquor Sales as discussed in para 7.1 Rs.1,78,19,693 (ii) From Restaurant Sales as discussed in para 7.2 to 7.4Rs. 17,56,400 (iii) From sale of cigarettes as discussed in para

M/S. MATHA ENTERPRISES,,ANGAMALLY vs. ACIT, ERNAKULAM

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

ITA 304/COCH/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Dec 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am &Shri George George K, Jm

For Respondent: Sri. Sudhanshu Shekhar Jha, CIT(DR)

House Property (as returned) :Rs.42,000 Income from business Loss admitted as per return (-):Rs. 7,323 Add: Undisclosed income (i) From Liquor Sales as discussed in para 7.1 Rs.1,78,19,693 (ii) From Restaurant Sales as discussed in para 7.2 to 7.4Rs. 17,56,400 (iii) From sale of cigarettes as discussed in para

M/S BEST BAKERY & ICE CREAM PARLOUR,ANGAMALLY vs. ACIT, ERNAKULAM

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

ITA 507/COCH/2010[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Dec 2019AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am &Shri George George K, Jm

For Respondent: Sri. Sudhanshu Shekhar Jha, CIT(DR)

House Property (as returned) :Rs.42,000 Income from business Loss admitted as per return (-):Rs. 7,323 Add: Undisclosed income (i) From Liquor Sales as discussed in para 7.1 Rs.1,78,19,693 (ii) From Restaurant Sales as discussed in para 7.2 to 7.4Rs. 17,56,400 (iii) From sale of cigarettes as discussed in para