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.

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

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,882 Delhi764 Kolkata359 Ahmedabad343 Karnataka276 Bangalore225 Chennai213 Chandigarh192 Pune181 Jaipur176 Cochin126 Hyderabad79 Raipur70 Indore67 Visakhapatnam65 Amritsar62 Rajkot52 Nagpur45 Surat40 Calcutta36 Lucknow33 Cuttack30 Patna28 Guwahati26 Telangana21 SC21 Jodhpur12 Varanasi7 Dehradun5 Ranchi3 Agra3 Rajasthan3 Panaji3 Kerala2 Allahabad2 D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1 Andhra Pradesh1 Himachal Pradesh1 Jabalpur1 T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 25091 Addition to Income38 Section 143(3)15 Section 26315 Section 37(1)12 Unexplained Investment10 Capital Gains10 Section 2(24)(vi)8 Section 48

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 126 · Page 1 of 7

8

BHIMA JEWELLERS,SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD vs. THE PR CIT, KOZHIKKODE, KOZHIKKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 208/COCH/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Aug 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. No.208/Coch/2018 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Bhima Jewellers, Vs. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income- 6/785 Ai, Tax, Kozhikode. Mysore Road, Chungum Junction, Sulthan Bathery, Wayanad-673 592. [Pan: Aakfb 9817C] (Assessee-Appellant) (Revenue-Respondent) Revenue By Shri Dhanaraj A. Sr. Dr Assessee By Shri R. Krishnan, Ca Date Of Hearing 05/07/2018 Date Of Pronouncement 20/08/2018

Section 115BSection 14Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68Section 69Section 69ASection 69BSection 69CSection 69D

carry forward business loss and depreciation holding that the assessee was entitled to claim set off of the current year’s loss and also brought forward loss and unabsorbed depreciation against the unexplained income in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act. On appeal: Held, allowing the appeal, that the income had been treated as unexplained cash credit under

M/S.POPULAR FINANCE,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1, THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 203/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

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

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)

forward and the AO was supposed to have given finding in this regard. However, no such finding was given by the AO while passing assessment order. 3.4 While revising the assessment order, the Pr. CIT placed reliance on the observations of the Delhi High Court in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises Vs Addl.CTT 99 TTR 75 as follows

M/S POPULAR FINANCE COMPANY,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ACIT,CIR-1,, THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 204/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

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

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)

forward and the AO was supposed to have given finding in this regard. However, no such finding was given by the AO while passing assessment order. 3.4 While revising the assessment order, the Pr. CIT placed reliance on the observations of the Delhi High Court in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises Vs Addl.CTT 99 TTR 75 as follows

M/S POPULAR FINANCE COMPANY,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ACIT,CIR-1,, THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 202/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

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

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)

forward and the AO was supposed to have given finding in this regard. However, no such finding was given by the AO while passing assessment order. 3.4 While revising the assessment order, the Pr. CIT placed reliance on the observations of the Delhi High Court in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises Vs Addl.CTT 99 TTR 75 as follows

HLL BIOTECH LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, WD-1(1), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee as well as the Stay Petitions filed

ITA 577/COCH/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

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

carry forward of net loss of Rs.29,360. The company later on realised its mistake and on 26th Dec., 1984, it filed a revised return showing business loss of Rs. 3,21,802. It claimed that according to the accepted accounting practice, interest and finance charges along with other pre-production expenses will have to be capitalised, and that, therefore

HLL BIOTECH LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, WD-1(1), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee as well as the Stay Petitions filed

ITA 578/COCH/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Mar 2019AY 2015-16

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

carry forward of net loss of Rs.29,360. The company later on realised its mistake and on 26th Dec., 1984, it filed a revised return showing business loss of Rs. 3,21,802. It claimed that according to the accepted accounting practice, interest and finance charges along with other pre-production expenses will have to be capitalised, and that, therefore

HLL BIOTECH LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, WD-1(1), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee as well as the Stay Petitions filed

ITA 576/COCH/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

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

carry forward of net loss of Rs.29,360. The company later on realised its mistake and on 26th Dec., 1984, it filed a revised return showing business loss of Rs. 3,21,802. It claimed that according to the accepted accounting practice, interest and finance charges along with other pre-production expenses will have to be capitalised, and that, therefore

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)

house property”. Though in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (supra) it was held that “the courts will generally adopt an earlier pronouncement of the law or a conclusion of fact unless there is a new ground urged or a material change in the factual position” (paragraph 20) and though as evident from the “order” in Shambhu Investments (P) Ltd. 9supra) wherein

DCIT, ERNAKULAM vs. MATHA ENTERPRISES, ANGAMALLY

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

ITA 269/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

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 308/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 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

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 509/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. MATHA ENTERPRISES,,ANGAMALLY vs. ACIT, ERNAKULAM

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

ITA 303/COCH/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Dec 2019AY 2002-03

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

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)

house property”. Though in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (supra) it was held that “the courts will generally adopt an earlier pronouncement of the law or a conclusion of fact unless there is a new ground urged or a material change in the factual position” (paragraph 20) and though as evident from the “order” in ITA No.160-162/Coch/2017 19 M/s.PTL Enterprises Limited

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)

house property”. Though in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (supra) it was held that “the courts will generally adopt an earlier pronouncement of the law or a conclusion of fact unless there is a new ground urged or a material change in the factual position” (paragraph 20) and though as evident from the “order” in ITA No.160-162/Coch/2017 19 M/s.PTL Enterprises Limited

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)

house property”. Though in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (supra) it was held that “the courts will generally adopt an earlier pronouncement of the law or a conclusion of fact unless there is a new ground urged or a material change in the factual position” (paragraph 20) and though as evident from the “order” in ITA No.160-162/Coch/2017 19 M/s.PTL Enterprises Limited

SRI.ESSA ISMAIL SAIT,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ACIT,CIR-2(1),, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

ITA 605/COCH/2005[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

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

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

carried in appeal to the Tribunal and by the impugned order, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, accepting the sale value as returned by the assessee. It is this order which is impugned by the Revenue. 4. Insofar as the remaining appeals are concerned, the relevant facts are that, in the meanwhile, dividing the total income assessed