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.

9 results for “house property”+ Penaltyclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,290Delhi1,138Bangalore356Karnataka322Jaipur293Chennai254Ahmedabad204Hyderabad173Kolkata155Chandigarh150Pune108Indore54Raipur49Lucknow42Calcutta34SC33Telangana33Surat30Nagpur28Rajkot23Visakhapatnam19Agra18Patna16Cuttack15Amritsar11Cochin9Guwahati8Rajasthan7Jodhpur4Allahabad4Dehradun3A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN3Panaji3Orissa2Varanasi2Ranchi2ARIJIT PASAYAT C.K. THAKKER1Jabalpur1Himachal Pradesh1Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 54F24Section 2(15)8Section 153C6Section 2505Section 143(3)4Section 153A4Section 69A4Section 115B4Exemption4Disallowance

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

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 566/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

properties owned by the assessee including those owned in abroad. The assessee furnished the details as required from which the CIT(A) noticed that the assessee is jointly owning two residential houses in USA. The CIT(A) held that the assessee is not entitled to deduction u/s.54F at all since the assessee owns more than one residential house, other than

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

4
House Property3
Deduction3

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

properties owned by the assessee including those owned in abroad. The assessee furnished the details as required from which the CIT(A) noticed that the assessee is jointly owning two residential houses in USA. The CIT(A) held that the assessee is not entitled to deduction u/s.54F at all since the assessee owns more than one residential house, other than

SRI.MOHAMMED SHERIEF,KARUNAGAPPALLY vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM

In the result, ITA No. 463/Coch/2016 is allowed and ITA No

ITA 102/COCH/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 153ASection 153C

house property. Since the learned CIT-DR has not controverted the above submission made by the appellant, we direct the AO to delete the addition of Rs. 20,952/-. 12. Accordingly the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed. 13. The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Kochi

SRI.MOHAMMED SHERIEF,KARUNAGAPPALLY vs. THE DCIT, KOLLAM

In the result, ITA No. 463/Coch/2016 is allowed and ITA No

ITA 463/COCH/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 153ASection 153C

house property. Since the learned CIT-DR has not controverted the above submission made by the appellant, we direct the AO to delete the addition of Rs. 20,952/-. 12. Accordingly the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed. 13. The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Kochi

FRANCIS LISTON,ERNAKULAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NONCORPORATE WARD 2(1), KOCHI, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 673/COCH/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Francis ListonFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal. Snr DR
Section 139(1)Section 148Section 24Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

house property” of Rs.71,605/- as against the income of Rs.6,751/-. The said assessment order was challenged before the Ld.CIT(A). But the Ld. CIT(A) rejected the appeal on merit. Further, the Ld.AO issued the penalty

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

Property Transactions Act, etc., with a view to curb the mischief of subsequently disclosing the undisclosed cash/entries/assets of earlier years in return of income filed for current year in the garb of regular business income or income from other sources and paying much less taxes and that too without paying any penalty also. This was also intended to prevent such

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

Property Transactions Act, etc., with a view to curb the mischief of subsequently disclosing the undisclosed cash/entries/assets of earlier years in return of income filed for current year in the garb of regular business income or income from other sources and paying much less taxes and that too without paying any penalty also. This was also intended to prevent such

KERALA INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUTURE DEV CORPORATION(KINFRA),TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION), TRIVANDRUM

ITA 452/COCH/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Aug 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Sri.Sukhsagar Syal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 260ASection 263

House, 31/2312, Sasthamangalam Trivandrum – 695 010. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Sri.Sukhsagar Syal, Advocate Revenue by : Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR Date of Pronouncement : 14.08.2024 Date of Hearing : 14.08.2024 O R D E R Per Bench : This assessee’s appeal ITA No.452/Coch/2014 for assessment year 2009-2010 arises against CIT, Thiruvananthapuram’s order No.C.No.412/J/R-21/2013-14 dated 18.03.2014, in proceedings u/s.263

ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION), TRIVANDRUM vs. KERALA INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEV.CORPORATION, TRIVANDRUM

ITA 287/COCH/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Sri.Sukhsagar Syal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 260ASection 263

House, 31/2312, Sasthamangalam Trivandrum – 695 010. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Sri.Sukhsagar Syal, Advocate Revenue by : Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR Date of Pronouncement : 14.08.2024 Date of Hearing : 14.08.2024 O R D E R Per Bench : This assessee’s appeal ITA No.452/Coch/2014 for assessment year 2009-2010 arises against CIT, Thiruvananthapuram’s order No.C.No.412/J/R-21/2013-14 dated 18.03.2014, in proceedings u/s.263