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.

64 results for “house property”+ Carry Forward of Lossesclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,953 Delhi787 Kolkata368 Karnataka276 Bangalore240 Chennai219 Ahmedabad194 Chandigarh182 Jaipur170 Pune100 Raipur68 Hyderabad66 Cochin64 Rajkot62 Amritsar55 Indore54 Nagpur44 Surat37 Calcutta36 Lucknow35 Patna27 Guwahati24 SC21 Telangana21 Cuttack18 Visakhapatnam16 Jodhpur8 Varanasi7 Dehradun5 Rajasthan3 Panaji3 Agra2 Allahabad2 Kerala2 Andhra Pradesh1 T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1 Jabalpur1 Himachal Pradesh1 D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1

Key Topics

Section 250115 Section 1479 Section 143(3)7 Section 1485 Section 69A4 Section 115B4 Section 694 Section 1154 Survey u/s 133A3 Limitation/Time-bar

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

loss under the head “House Property” was carried forward. 4. Against the assessment order passed under section 143(3) read

Showing 1–20 of 64 · Page 1 of 4

3

House Property2

Addition to Income2

EEPEES DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOZHIKODE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOZHIKODE

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

ITA 698/COCH/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Feb 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Smt. Parvathy Ammal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Snr. AR

forward the losses of the earlier years and the unabsorbed depreciation and set off the same with the current year’s income. The AO treated the said license fee under the head income from house property and denied the other deductions except the 30% towards repair and maintenance as per the provisions of the Act. The assessee challenged the said

SRI SRAVAN KUMAR NEELA,NALGONDA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the instant appeals by the assesses are dismissed

ITA 899/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasuma Maheshwara Rao Chinni Asst. Cit, Central Circle -1, Hno. 7-298, 7 Ward Aayakar Bhavan (North Block) Gandhi Bomma Centre Vs. Kozhikode 673001 Dachepalle, Guntur 522414 [Pan:Arjpc0342D] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 115BSection 132ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 69A

Carry Forward of loss'. Hence the deeming provisions from sections 68 to 69D are without any reference to incomes of any class, if the conditions therein are satisfied and, therefore, deemed income falling in these provisions will not be restricted or governed by any other provisions. The onus is on the assessee to establish the source of the income disclosed

SRI UMA MAHESHWARA RAO CHINNI,GUNTUR vs. ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the instant appeals by the assesses are dismissed

ITA 895/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasuma Maheshwara Rao Chinni Asst. Cit, Central Circle -1, Hno. 7-298, 7 Ward Aayakar Bhavan (North Block) Gandhi Bomma Centre Vs. Kozhikode 673001 Dachepalle, Guntur 522414 [Pan:Arjpc0342D] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 115BSection 132ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 69A

Carry Forward of loss'. Hence the deeming provisions from sections 68 to 69D are without any reference to incomes of any class, if the conditions therein are satisfied and, therefore, deemed income falling in these provisions will not be restricted or governed by any other provisions. The onus is on the assessee to establish the source of the income disclosed

MR.P.C.JOSE,,COCHIN vs. DCIT, COCHIN

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

ITA 54/COCH/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Apr 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasp.C. Jose Deputy Commissioner Of Prop. Brothers Agencies Income Tax, Circle-2(1) Jews Street Vs. Kochi Ernakulam 682031 [Pan: Abbpj8250F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Deputy Commissioner Of P.C. Jose Income Tax, Circle-2(1) Prop. Brothers Agencies Kochi Vs. Jews Street Ernakulam 682031 [Pan: Abbpj8250F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: ----- None -----For Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

forward the circumstance under which the activities of a person can be taken as business. In the absence of any such evidence I hold that the assessing officer has gone wrong in treating the profit on sale of agricultural properties as business income. (emphasis, ours) 5.3 Aggrieved, both the assessee and the Revenue are in appeal. While assessee is aggrieved

AJIT ASSOCIATES PRIVATE LIMITED,ERNAKULAM vs. JCIT, CORPORATE RANGE - 1, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 870/COCH/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Aug 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shriabyt.Varkey, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.A.Gopalakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamuna Devi, Sr.AR

Section 133ASection 147Section 148

housing project, as undertaken by AAPL. It would therefore require an agreement, predefining the basis for raising the charge by each one, for the work performed, on the beneficiaries thereof, of which there is, as afore-stated, no claim. The Approval/s sought by a company/s could throw light in the matter, particularly considering the stringent conditions stated as specified therein

GOOD HOMES PVT LTD,KOCHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 884/COCH/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Aug 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shriabyt.Varkey, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.A.Gopalakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamuna Devi, Sr.AR

Section 133ASection 147Section 148

housing project, as undertaken by AAPL. It would therefore require an agreement, predefining the basis for raising the charge by each one, for the work performed, on the beneficiaries thereof, of which there is, as afore-stated, no claim. The Approval/s sought by a company/s could throw light in the matter, particularly considering the stringent conditions stated as specified therein

BATHX BATHWARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KOCHIN vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 436/COCH/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

house of Shri Rajendran, are now unavailable and the learned counsel for the Revenue has no answer for the same. On these premise, the assessment order made for the Assessment years 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19 requires to be quashed. 13.2 The above finding of the Hon’ble High Court was affirmed

A B C SALES CORPORATION ,KANNUR vs. ITO, CIRCLE-1, KANNUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 404/COCH/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

house of Shri Rajendran, are now unavailable and the learned counsel for the Revenue has no answer for the same. On these premise, the assessment order made for the Assessment years 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19 requires to be quashed. 13.2 The above finding of the Hon’ble High Court was affirmed

RUCHIT PARIMAL ASHAR,SANALA ROAD, MORBI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 505/COCH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

house of Shri Rajendran, are now unavailable and the learned counsel for the Revenue has no answer for the same. On these premise, the assessment order made for the Assessment years 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19 requires to be quashed. 13.2 The above finding of the Hon’ble High Court was affirmed

ABC SALES CORPORATION,KANNUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 458/COCH/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

house of Shri Rajendran, are now unavailable and the learned counsel for the Revenue has no answer for the same. On these premise, the assessment order made for the Assessment years 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19 requires to be quashed. 13.2 The above finding of the Hon’ble High Court was affirmed

KAKKOTTAKATH NADUVILAPURAYIL JUNAID,KANNUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 497/COCH/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

house of Shri Rajendran, are now unavailable and the learned counsel for the Revenue has no answer for the same. On these premise, the assessment order made for the Assessment years 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19 requires to be quashed. 13.2 The above finding of the Hon’ble High Court was affirmed

KAKKOTTAKATH NADUVILAPURAYIL JUNAID,KANNUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 498/COCH/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

house of Shri Rajendran, are now unavailable and the learned counsel for the Revenue has no answer for the same. On these premise, the assessment order made for the Assessment years 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19 requires to be quashed. 13.2 The above finding of the Hon’ble High Court was affirmed

KAKKOTTAKATH NADUVILAPURAYIL JUNAID,KANNUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 499/COCH/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

house of Shri Rajendran, are now unavailable and the learned counsel for the Revenue has no answer for the same. On these premise, the assessment order made for the Assessment years 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19 requires to be quashed. 13.2 The above finding of the Hon’ble High Court was affirmed

ABC SALES CORPORATION,KANNUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 457/COCH/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

house of Shri Rajendran, are now unavailable and the learned counsel for the Revenue has no answer for the same. On these premise, the assessment order made for the Assessment years 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19 requires to be quashed. 13.2 The above finding of the Hon’ble High Court was affirmed

MUAHAMMED JABIR,TALIPARAMBA vs. ACIT< CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 522/COCH/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

house of Shri Rajendran, are now unavailable and the learned counsel for the Revenue has no answer for the same. On these premise, the assessment order made for the Assessment years 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19 requires to be quashed. 13.2 The above finding of the Hon’ble High Court was affirmed

ABC BUILDWAERS INDIA (P) LIMITED,KANNUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 456/COCH/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

house of Shri Rajendran, are now unavailable and the learned counsel for the Revenue has no answer for the same. On these premise, the assessment order made for the Assessment years 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19 requires to be quashed. 13.2 The above finding of the Hon’ble High Court was affirmed

MUAHAMMED JABIR,TALIPARAMBA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 521/COCH/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

house of Shri Rajendran, are now unavailable and the learned counsel for the Revenue has no answer for the same. On these premise, the assessment order made for the Assessment years 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19 requires to be quashed. 13.2 The above finding of the Hon’ble High Court was affirmed

K.ABDUL VAHEED,TALIPARAMBA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 502/COCH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

house of Shri Rajendran, are now unavailable and the learned counsel for the Revenue has no answer for the same. On these premise, the assessment order made for the Assessment years 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19 requires to be quashed. 13.2 The above finding of the Hon’ble High Court was affirmed

ABC BUILDWARES(P) LIMITED,KANNUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1`, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 455/COCH/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

house of Shri Rajendran, are now unavailable and the learned counsel for the Revenue has no answer for the same. On these premise, the assessment order made for the Assessment years 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19 requires to be quashed. 13.2 The above finding of the Hon’ble High Court was affirmed