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.

114 results for “house property”+ Exemptionclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,429 Delhi1,740 Bangalore837 Chennai813 Karnataka577 Kolkata386 Ahmedabad289 Jaipur273 Hyderabad220 Pune206 Surat177 Chandigarh136 Indore116 Cochin114 Raipur74 Lucknow68 Nagpur59 Calcutta58 Telangana56 SC52 Cuttack50 Visakhapatnam39 Rajkot37 Patna30 Amritsar27 Guwahati26 Agra16 Jodhpur14 Kerala12 Varanasi11 Allahabad8 Rajasthan7 Dehradun7 Ranchi4 Jabalpur4 Punjab & Haryana4 A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN3 Panaji2 Andhra Pradesh2 Orissa1 D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1 T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1 Gauhati1 Himachal Pradesh1 J&K1 ANIL R. DAVE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1

Key Topics

Section 250114 Section 54F55 Section 143(3)38 Exemption26 Section 5420 Section 12A19 Section 26317 Section 80G16 Deduction16 Addition to Income

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

exemption claimed under section 54F of the Act by the assessee to the tune of Rs 86,24,063/- being investment in residential house property

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

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Showing 1–20 of 114 · Page 1 of 6

16

ITA 566/COCH/2022[2015-2016]Status: Disposed

ITAT Cochin

02 Jan 2023

AY 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

exemption claimed under section 54F of the Act by the assessee to the tune of Rs 86,24,063/- being investment in residential house property

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

house and appurtenant land as eligible u/s. 54 and rest of the portion is considered as vacant land. The gains arising on sale of said vacant land was exempted u/s. 54 of the Act. However, the AO denied exemption u/s. 54F treating the entire property

ACIT, COCHIN vs. SRI.P.C.JOSE, COCHIN

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 84/COCH/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin18 Mar 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Keshav Dubey, Jm Assessment Year: 2008-09 P.C. Jose .......... Appellant Brothers Agencies, Jews Street Ernakulam 682031 [Pan: Abbpj8250F] Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax .......... Respondent Circle - 2(1), Kochi Assessment Year: 2008-09 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax .......... Appellant Circle - 2(1), Kochi Vs. P.C. Jose .......... Respondent Brothers Agencies, Jews Street Ernakulam 682031 [Pan: Abbpj8250F] Assessee By: Shri R. Krishnan, Ca Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das & Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 20.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.03.2025 P.C. Jose

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das &

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 40

property to housing societies etc., the observations have been made. The observation of ensuring agri-cultural use for a reasonable span of time in the near future is case-specific inasmuch as in the said judgment the assessee has applied for conversion of land from agricultural to non-agricultural use, etc. The test laid down in V. A. Trivedi case

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 v. Surat Art and Silk Mfrs. Assn. [1980] 121 ITR 1 (SC); CIT v. Gujarat Maritime Board [2007] 295 ITR 561 (SC); CIT v. Dawoodi Bohra Jamat [2014] 364 ITR 31 (SC); and DIT(E) v. Sabarmati Ashram Gaushala

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 v. Surat Art and Silk Mfrs. Assn. [1980] 121 ITR 1 (SC); CIT v. Gujarat Maritime Board [2007] 295 ITR 561 (SC); CIT v. Dawoodi Bohra Jamat [2014] 364 ITR 31 (SC); and DIT(E) v. Sabarmati Ashram Gaushala

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 v. Surat Art and Silk Mfrs. Assn. [1980] 121 ITR 1 (SC); CIT v. Gujarat Maritime Board [2007] 295 ITR 561 (SC); CIT v. Dawoodi Bohra Jamat [2014] 364 ITR 31 (SC); and DIT(E) v. Sabarmati Ashram Gaushala

SMT.THULASI SUBASH,THRIKKAKKARA vs. THE ITO, KOCHI

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

ITA 286/COCH/2020[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Cochin14 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am Smt. Thulasi Subash The Income Tax Officer 6/460A, Chellam Ward-1(5), Range 1 Kollamkudimugal Vs. Non Corporate Thrikkakara Kochi Kochi 682021 Pan – Ctaps0080B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Savio George, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shantham Bose, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54

house property whether it qualifies for claiming exemption u/s 54 as required in that section. The Assessing Officer has failed

ROSE GEORGE KOLLANUR,THRISSUR vs. ITO WARD 2(2), THRISSUR, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 610/COCH/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Dec 2022AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri V Ramnath, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54F

exemption was granted on the same grounds. There are additional precedents which include I.T.O. vs. R. Srinivas I.T.A. No. 79/Bang/2014 and I. TO vs. Hiralal K Jain ITA No. 1176/Mds/2010. Moreover, it is not disputed by the A.O. that the assessee has invested the capital gains in a residential property within three years from the date of transfer of original

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

exemption made in the original return. The 2 Smt.Tresa Jolly. assessee also claimed loss in the house property and deduction

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

exemption under section 54/ 54F of the Act with respect to the short-term capital gain arising from the sale of depreciable assets. 6 Kumar Madhavanpillai S. 16. The next controversy arises whether the investment made by the assessee in the new property is partly commercially in nature and partly residential in nature. In this regard, we note that assessee

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

house property, the issue as to whether letting is business or property income, it has been explained time and again by the higher Courts (viz. Sultan Bros. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1964] 51 ITR 353 (SC)) that each case is to be seen from a businessman’s point of view to find out whether the letting was a doing

V D DEVASIA,KOTTAYAM vs. ACIT, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals by the assessees are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 48/COCH/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Sept 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember

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

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 64

house property. We are conscious, we may clarify, that the ld. CIT(A) has, in computing the % age of total consideration ascribed to land, being in fact at 63%, wrongly worked it at 37%, which is in fact for building. The same would not, however, in any manner, impact the final conclusion, which is based on, firstly, the assessee

CHENGAZHASSERIL THOMAS KURIAN,KOTTAYAM vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTTAYAM, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals by the assessees are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 472/COCH/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Sept 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember

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

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 64

house property. We are conscious, we may clarify, that the ld. CIT(A) has, in computing the % age of total consideration ascribed to land, being in fact at 63%, wrongly worked it at 37%, which is in fact for building. The same would not, however, in any manner, impact the final conclusion, which is based on, firstly, the assessee

V D DEVASIA,KOTTAYAM vs. ACIT, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals by the assessees are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 50/COCH/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Sept 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember

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

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 64

house property. We are conscious, we may clarify, that the ld. CIT(A) has, in computing the % age of total consideration ascribed to land, being in fact at 63%, wrongly worked it at 37%, which is in fact for building. The same would not, however, in any manner, impact the final conclusion, which is based on, firstly, the assessee

CHENGAZHASSERIL THOMAS KURIAN,KOTTAYAM vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTTAYAM, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals by the assessees are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 473/COCH/2022[ 2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Sept 2023

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember

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

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 64

house property. We are conscious, we may clarify, that the ld. CIT(A) has, in computing the % age of total consideration ascribed to land, being in fact at 63%, wrongly worked it at 37%, which is in fact for building. The same would not, however, in any manner, impact the final conclusion, which is based on, firstly, the assessee

V D DEVASIA,KOTTAYAM vs. ACIT, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals by the assessees are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 49/COCH/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Sept 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember

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

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 64

house property. We are conscious, we may clarify, that the ld. CIT(A) has, in computing the % age of total consideration ascribed to land, being in fact at 63%, wrongly worked it at 37%, which is in fact for building. The same would not, however, in any manner, impact the final conclusion, which is based on, firstly, the assessee

CHENGAZHASSERIL THOMAS KURIAN,KOTTAYAM vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTTAYAM, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals by the assessees are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 474/COCH/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Sept 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember

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

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 64

house property. We are conscious, we may clarify, that the ld. CIT(A) has, in computing the % age of total consideration ascribed to land, being in fact at 63%, wrongly worked it at 37%, which is in fact for building. The same would not, however, in any manner, impact the final conclusion, which is based on, firstly, the assessee

V D DEVASIA,KOTTAYAM vs. ACIT, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals by the assessees are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 47/COCH/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Sept 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember

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

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 64

house property. We are conscious, we may clarify, that the ld. CIT(A) has, in computing the % age of total consideration ascribed to land, being in fact at 63%, wrongly worked it at 37%, which is in fact for building. The same would not, however, in any manner, impact the final conclusion, which is based on, firstly, the assessee

SRI.JOSE THOMAS,ADOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ACIT,CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 211/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.Anil D.Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sundarasan S, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

house property; D. Profits and gains of business or profession; E. Capital gains; F. income from other sources unless otherwise, provided in the Act. (15) Section 56 provides for the chargeability of income of every kind which has not to be excluded from the total income under the Act, only if it is not chargeable to income-tax under