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”+ Revision u/s 263clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai562Delhi380Karnataka293Bangalore285Kolkata129Chennai105Jaipur91Ahmedabad68Chandigarh59Hyderabad41Raipur36Pune31Indore30Surat24Patna23Rajkot20Lucknow19Visakhapatnam16Agra16Cuttack12Cochin9Amritsar8Nagpur7Jabalpur6Telangana4Dehradun4Jodhpur3Varanasi2Guwahati1Ranchi1Rajasthan1Panaji1Punjab & Haryana1Allahabad1

Key Topics

Section 26330Section 115B12Section 143(3)8Section 688Section 545Survey u/s 133A4Limitation/Time-bar4Section 1473Section 323House Property

DESAI HOMES,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ACIT NON CORP CIRCLE 2(1), COCHIN

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 316/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Assessment Year: 2017-18 Desai Homes .......... Appellant Dd Trade Tower, Kadavanthra Road Kaloor, Kochi 682017 [Pan: Aacfd0390E] Vs. Acit, Non-Corporte Circle 2(1) .......... Respondent C.R. Building, I.S. Press Road, Kochi 682018 Appellant By: Ms. Rohini Thampy, Ca Respondent By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.03.2025

For Appellant: Ms. Rohini Thampy, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80I

263 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter "the Act") for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a partnership firm engaged in the business of builder and developer. The return of income for AY 2017-18 was filed on 29.10.2017 and the same was 2 Desai Homes revised on 30.10.2018 declaring

3
Depreciation3
Section 80I2

SRI.P.V.RAVINDRAN,KANNUR vs. THE ITO, KANNUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 302/COCH/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri T.M. Sreedharan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Shantam Bose, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 263Section 3(1)(b)Section 68

House Property of Rs. 72,000 , the provisions u/s 115BBE r.w.s 69 are applicable as the source for the such amount has not been explained with any cogent evidence even during the survey/assessment proceedings but also during the revision proceedings. Therefore this amount is required to be taxed. Further Rs. 5,28,000 said to be the income derived from

SHRI.P.V. RAVEENDRAN,KANNUR vs. THE ITO, KANNUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 303/COCH/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri T.M. Sreedharan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Shantam Bose, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 263Section 3(1)(b)Section 68

House Property of Rs. 72,000 , the provisions u/s 115BBE r.w.s 69 are applicable as the source for the such amount has not been explained with any cogent evidence even during the survey/assessment proceedings but also during the revision proceedings. Therefore this amount is required to be taxed. Further Rs. 5,28,000 said to be the income derived from

KERALA TRANSPORT DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE PCIT , TRIVANDRUM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 443/COCH/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year:2018-19 Kerala Transport Development Finance .......... Appellant Corporation Limited, Thiruvananthapuram. Pan: Aabck1318F Vs.

For Appellant: Smt. Anoopa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Veni Raj, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 32

263 of the Act in case the assessment order passed is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. In order to invoke the power of revision, the above two conditions are required to be satisfied cumulatively. References in this regard can be made to the decision 4 Kerala Transport Development Finance Corporation Ltd vs. PCIT

SHRI.VISWANATHA MANOJ KUMAR,KOCHI vs. THE PR.CIT, KOCHI

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

ITA 151/COCH/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Aby T.Varkeyviswanatha Manoj Kumar Pr. Commissioner Of 39/421, Temple Road Income Tax - 1 Kadavanthara Vs. C.R. Building, I.S. Press Road Ernakulam 682020 Kochi 682018 [Pan:Adwpm1619G] [Appellant] [Respondent] Appellant By: Shri K.M.V. Pandalai, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Prasanth V.K., Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri K.M.V. Pandalai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prasanth V.K., CIT-DR
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 263(1)Section 56(2)(vii)

House [1971] 82 ITR 824 (SC); CIT v. Amitabh Bachchan [2016] 384 ITR 200 (SC), that a show cause notice is not a concomitant of the proceedings u/s. 263. The whole premise of a notice is to put the assessee to notice of the proceedings under section 263 having been initiated against it and, two, afford an opportunity of hearing

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

revision under Section 263 of the Act wherein in para 7 of his order the Pr. CIT had held as under: - “It appears from the records that the Assessing Officer had not conducted a proper enquiry or verification whether the transfer of capital assets was a residential house or not, and investment made in the new house property whether

KERALA TRANSPORT DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LIMITED,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ITO, CIRCLE 1(1), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 41/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year:2018-19 Kerala Transport Development Finance .......... Appellant Corporation Limited, Thiruvananthapuram. Pan: Aabck1318F Vs. Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Circle-1(1), Trivandrum.

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Pradeep, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Veni Raj, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32

revised on 29/03/2019 disclosing NIL income. The assessment against the said return of income was completed by the AO vide order dated 23/03/2021 passed U/s. 143(3) of the Act accepting the returned loss. Subsequently, on the scrutiny of the assessment order, the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (in short “Ld. PCIT”) was of the opinion that the assessment

GOOD HOMES PVT LTD,KOCHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 884/COCH/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Aug 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shriabyt.Varkey, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.A.Gopalakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamuna Devi, Sr.AR
Section 133ASection 147Section 148

Housing Organization) for sale of 426 cents of land in 1991, at Rs.10,000 per cent, as against the market price / circle rate of Rs.25,000 per cent, were made. ICDS, which had underwritten the loan from Syndicate Bank, attached the property (except to the extent given to HUDCO) in 1993-1994. That is, the sale of property during this

AJIT ASSOCIATES PRIVATE LIMITED,ERNAKULAM vs. JCIT, CORPORATE RANGE - 1, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 870/COCH/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Aug 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shriabyt.Varkey, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.A.Gopalakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamuna Devi, Sr.AR
Section 133ASection 147Section 148

Housing Organization) for sale of 426 cents of land in 1991, at Rs.10,000 per cent, as against the market price / circle rate of Rs.25,000 per cent, were made. ICDS, which had underwritten the loan from Syndicate Bank, attached the property (except to the extent given to HUDCO) in 1993-1994. That is, the sale of property during this