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.

189 results for “house property”+ Exemptionclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,349Delhi1,715Bangalore824Chennai800Karnataka577Ahmedabad474Pune382Kolkata374Jaipur359Hyderabad306Surat189Cochin189Chandigarh188Indore176Visakhapatnam82Raipur79Cuttack76Lucknow68Nagpur60Calcutta58Telangana56SC52Amritsar45Rajkot40Guwahati33Patna29Agra21Jodhpur21Kerala12Allahabad11Varanasi11Dehradun8Ranchi7Rajasthan7Jabalpur4Punjab & Haryana4A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN3Panaji2Andhra Pradesh2D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Gauhati1Himachal Pradesh1J&K1ANIL R. DAVE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1Orissa1

Key Topics

Section 25074Section 143(3)37Section 26336Addition to Income31Section 54F26Exemption19Disallowance17Section 80G16Section 5416Section 153A

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 189 · Page 1 of 10

...
15
Deduction15
Section 143(2)13
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

SMT.MERCY GEORGE L/H OF SRI.GEORGE ABRAHAM,KOTTAYAM vs. THE ITO, WD-1, , KOTTAYAM

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

ITA 511/COCH/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Sri.Thomas Cherian, FCAFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 54Section 54FSection 54F(4)

house wherein he had 50% share, on 12.04.2012 for a total consideration of Rs.2,60,00,000. The assessee had purchased residential property for a sum of Rs.85,30,475 on 15.09.2011. In the return of income filed for the assessment year 2013-2014, the assessee had claimed exemption

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

house property. As such, the assessee cannot have any grievance and is entitled to only deduction u/s. 24 of the I.T. Act. Thus, this ground of appeal of the assessee in ITA No.279/Coch/2019 for the assessment year 2012-13 is dismissed. Thus, the appeals of the assessee in ITA I.T.A. Nos.277-279/Coch/2019 . Nos.277 & 278/Coch/2019 for the assessment year

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

house property. As such, the assessee cannot have any grievance and is entitled to only deduction u/s. 24 of the I.T. Act. Thus, this ground of appeal of the assessee in ITA No.279/Coch/2019 for the assessment year 2012-13 is dismissed. Thus, the appeals of the assessee in ITA I.T.A. Nos.277-279/Coch/2019 . Nos.277 & 278/Coch/2019 for the assessment year

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

house property. As such, the assessee cannot have any grievance and is entitled to only deduction u/s. 24 of the I.T. Act. Thus, this ground of appeal of the assessee in ITA No.279/Coch/2019 for the assessment year 2012-13 is dismissed. Thus, the appeals of the assessee in ITA I.T.A. Nos.277-279/Coch/2019 . Nos.277 & 278/Coch/2019 for the assessment year

THE ITO, WARD-2, THODUPUZHA, THODUPUZHA vs. SRI.MARTIN JOHNY, KOTHAMANGALAM

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

ITA 354/COCH/2006[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

Exemption u/s. 54F In respect of the new house property purchased 75,00,000 x 2787338/27495000) Rs. 7,60,321 Taxable

THE ITO, WD-2, THODUPUZHA, THODUPUZHA vs. SRI.TOMY MATHEW PARTNER OF MATHAI SONS, KOTHAMANGALAM

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

ITA 419/COCH/2007[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

Exemption u/s. 54F In respect of the new house property purchased 75,00,000 x 2787338/27495000) Rs. 7,60,321 Taxable

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

Exemption u/s. 54F In respect of the new house property purchased 75,00,000 x 2787338/27495000) Rs. 7,60,321 Taxable

THE ACIT, CIR-1(1), ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI.JOSE MATHEW, M/S.E.V.MTHAI & SONS, KOTHAMANGALAM

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

ITA 450/COCH/2007[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

Exemption u/s. 54F In respect of the new house property purchased 75,00,000 x 2787338/27495000) Rs. 7,60,321 Taxable

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI.E.M.PAUL, EDAKATTUKUDIYIL, KOTHAMANGALAM

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

ITA 449/COCH/2007[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

Exemption u/s. 54F In respect of the new house property purchased 75,00,000 x 2787338/27495000) Rs. 7,60,321 Taxable

THEACIT, CIR-1(1),EKM, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI.E.M.JOHNY, KOTHAMANGALAM

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

ITA 453/COCH/2007[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

Exemption u/s. 54F In respect of the new house property purchased 75,00,000 x 2787338/27495000) Rs. 7,60,321 Taxable

THE ITO, WD-2, THODUPUZHA, THODUPUZHA vs. SRI.E.J.SONY, KOTHAMANGALAM

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

ITA 355/COCH/2006[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

Exemption u/s. 54F In respect of the new house property purchased 75,00,000 x 2787338/27495000) Rs. 7,60,321 Taxable

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI.MATHAI XAVIER, KOTHAMANGALAM

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

ITA 451/COCH/2007[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

Exemption u/s. 54F In respect of the new house property purchased 75,00,000 x 2787338/27495000) Rs. 7,60,321 Taxable

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 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

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

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