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.

163 results for “house property”+ Natural Justiceclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,835Mumbai1,451Bangalore714Karnataka677Jaipur401Chennai374Ahmedabad341Hyderabad266Kolkata216Pune205Chandigarh202Cochin163Telangana152Indore129Visakhapatnam123Surat92Raipur88Amritsar80Lucknow75Rajkot71Calcutta61Cuttack59Nagpur50Patna42Agra37Jodhpur32SC32Allahabad28Guwahati26Dehradun19Rajasthan16Varanasi12Jabalpur11Kerala9Orissa6Ranchi5Panaji3Punjab & Haryana2Gauhati2Andhra Pradesh2Himachal Pradesh1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1ARIJIT PASAYAT C.K. THAKKER1

Key Topics

Section 25092Addition to Income44Section 26323Section 143(3)19Section 37(1)12Section 115B12Section 6910Unexplained Investment10Section 143(2)

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

house property, the Assessing Officer has erred in assessing the same as profit and gains of business on a lower base in I.T.A. No./361/C/2017 the order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act which renders the assessment erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. Accordingly he gave the above directions to the Assessing Officer by invoking the provisions

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: Disposed

Showing 1–20 of 163 · Page 1 of 9

...
8
Section 153C8
Survey u/s 133A8
Deduction7
ITAT Cochin
19 May 2025
AY 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)

justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of non-deliberate delay”. 3.7 The next question may arise whether delay was excessive or inordinate. There is no question of any excessive or inordinate when the reason stated by the assessee was a reasonable cause for not filing

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)

justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of non-deliberate delay”. 3.7 The next question may arise whether delay was excessive or inordinate. There is no question of any excessive or inordinate when the reason stated by the assessee was a reasonable cause for not filing

PANICHIKANDY MOHANDASAN,KASARGOD vs. THE DCIT, KANNUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 48/COCH/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Assessment Year: 2016-17 Panichikandy Mohandasan .......... Appellant Kanhangad, Hosdurg, Kasaragod 671315 [Pan: Advpm0383N] Vs. Dy Commissioner Of Income Tax .......... Respondent Kannur Appellant By: Shri Arun Raj S., Advocate Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 10.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.03.2025

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

nature to compensate and 3 Panichikandy Mohandasan also deleted the disallowance of bank charges and interest. However, confirmed the disallowance u/s. 36(i)(va) of the Act in respect of belated remittance of PF and also disallowance of loss under the head ‘income from house property’ of Rs. 22,97,707/- by holding that when the property was under construction

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

nature referred to in clauses (ii) and (iii) of sub-section (2) of section 56, deductions, so far as may be, in accordance with the provisions of sub-clause(ii) of clause (a) and clause (c) of section 30, section 31 and sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 32 and subject to the provisions of section 38”. 4.2 Further

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

nature referred to in clauses (ii) and (iii) of sub-section (2) of section 56, deductions, so far as may be, in accordance with the provisions of sub-clause(ii) of clause (a) and clause (c) of section 30, section 31 and sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 32 and subject to the provisions of section 38”. 4.2 Further

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

nature referred to in clauses (ii) and (iii) of sub-section (2) of section 56, deductions, so far as may be, in accordance with the provisions of sub-clause(ii) of clause (a) and clause (c) of section 30, section 31 and sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 32 and subject to the provisions of section 38”. 4.2 Further

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

nature referred to in clauses (ii) and (iii) of sub-section (2) of section 56, deductions, so far as may be, in accordance with the provisions of sub-clause(ii) of clause (a) and clause (c) of section 30, section 31 and sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 32 and subject to the provisions of section 38”. 4.2 Further

SMT.MITHRA PAUL,MUVATTUPUZHA vs. THE ITO,WD-1, THODUPUZHA

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

ITA 421/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

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

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 153Section 263Section 44ASection 69B

natural justice. 2. The PCIT erred in not considering the written submission in proper perspective. I.T.A. No 421/Coch/2019 3. The PCIT erred in not considering the vital issue that the order dated 07/10/2016, stated to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue as per the Show Cause Notice dated 26/10/2018 and 21/01/2019, does not exist

M/S.HILLWOOD IMPORTS AND EXPORTS P. LTD,CALICUT vs. THE ITO(TDS), CALICUT

In the result, the appeals of the assesses are dismissed

ITA 449/COCH/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

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

Section 133A

natural justice. Hence, it cannot be used as evidence to frame the assessments in these cases. It was submitted that 13 I.T.A. Nos. 448-453/Coch/2018, 285-290/Coch/2018 & 446 &447/Coch/2018 even after accepting the demand for opportunity to cross examine Sri Riyaz, summons was issued for his appearance and the opportunity was thereafter denied when he did not turn

M/S.HILLWOOD IMPORTS AND EXPORTS P. LTD,CALICUT vs. THE ITO(TDS), CALICUT

In the result, the appeals of the assesses are dismissed

ITA 448/COCH/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Aug 2019AY 2008-09

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

Section 133A

natural justice. Hence, it cannot be used as evidence to frame the assessments in these cases. It was submitted that 13 I.T.A. Nos. 448-453/Coch/2018, 285-290/Coch/2018 & 446 &447/Coch/2018 even after accepting the demand for opportunity to cross examine Sri Riyaz, summons was issued for his appearance and the opportunity was thereafter denied when he did not turn

THE ITO(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CALICUT vs. SHRI. C. ABDUL MAHAROOF, MALAPPURAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the cross objection filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 234/COCH/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Sept 2020AY 2005-06

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

For Appellant: Sri.M.V.Venugopal, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Mritunjaya Sharma, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 148

House, Putharikkal Vs. (International Taxation) Parappangadi Kozhikode. Malappuram – 676 303. (Cross Objector) (Respondent) Revenue by : Sri.Mritunjaya Sharma, Sr.DR Assessee by : Sri.M.V.Venugopal, CA Date of Pronouncement : 17.09.2020 Date of Hearing : 17.09.2020 O R D E R Per George Mathan, JM : ITA No.234/Coch/2016 is an appeal filed by the Revenue and CO No.24/Coch/2016 is a cross objection filed by the assessee

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

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

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 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. 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 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

SRI.ALAVIKUTTY,VENGARA,MALAPPURAM vs. THE DCIT, CALICUT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 524/COCH/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Jan 2019AY 2007-08

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

Section 132Section 153Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 27I(1)Section 27I(1)(c)

House, Income-tax, Central Circle-2, Valiyora, Vengara, Calicut. Malappuram. [PAN: AQUIPA 5278L] (Assessee-Appellant) (Revenue-Respondent) Assessee by Shri P.V. Vijayan, ITP Revenue by Smt. A.S. Bindhu, Sr. DR Date of hearing 16/01/2019 Date of pronouncement 24/01/2019 O R D E R Per CHANDRA POOJARI, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order