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.

90 results for “house property”+ Section 142clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,231Delhi1,204Karnataka477Jaipur417Bangalore394Hyderabad287Kolkata222Ahmedabad220Chandigarh213Pune188Chennai185Indore159Visakhapatnam117Cochin90Rajkot77Surat65Raipur62Lucknow61Amritsar59Patna54Calcutta51Telangana51Agra43Nagpur34Guwahati29Cuttack27SC19Jodhpur17Allahabad16Varanasi12Rajasthan10Kerala5Jabalpur5Dehradun4Panaji3Orissa2Ranchi2H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1Punjab & Haryana1Andhra Pradesh1Himachal Pradesh1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1

Key Topics

Section 250118Addition to Income27Unexplained Investment13Section 54F11Section 2639Section 143(2)6Section 143(3)6Section 1546Section 53A6

SILLS KARINGATTIL JOSE,NEDUMKANDOM vs. ITO WARD 2, THODUPUZHA

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 132/COCH/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhsils Karingattil Jose Income Tax Officer Np 3/406, Karingattil Ward - 2, House, Munnar Road Thodupuzha Vs. Nedumkandom P.O. [Pan: Afopj8789C] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P. M. Veeramani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Section 2(47)Section 2(47)(V)Section 250Section 50CSection 53ASection 56(2)(vii)

House, Munnar Road Thodupuzha vs. Nedumkandom P.O. [PAN: AFOPJ8789C] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri P. M. Veeramani, CA Respondent by: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 22.08.2024 Date of Pronouncement: 19.11.2024 O R D E R Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member: This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2016-17 arises against the CIT(A)/National Faceless Appeal

Showing 1–20 of 90 · Page 1 of 5

Section 142(1)5
Cash Deposit5
Deduction4

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)

142(1) of the Act as well as a show cause noticedated 19/02/2022. The AO after considering the reply of the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings held that the assessee had failed to prove the source of credits in its bank account. Further the AO was of the view that the assessee has not submitted any concrete evidence

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: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2025AY 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)

142(1) of the Act as well as a show cause noticedated 19/02/2022. The AO after considering the reply of the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings held that the assessee had failed to prove the source of credits in its bank account. Further the AO was of the view that the assessee has not submitted any concrete evidence

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

142(1) as well as section 143(2) of the Act and after considering the material and explanation, the income-tax officer had come to a definite conclusion. Since material was there on record and material was considered and a particular view was taken, the mere fact that different view can be taken should not be the basis for action

REJI KRISHNAN,TRIVANDRUM vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the stay application is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 267/COCH/2024[AY 2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Jul 2024

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Dr. Abhishek Murali, CAFor Respondent: Sri. Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 234Section 54F

142(1) were issued, for which the assessee filed detailed written submissions along with documents. The Assessing Officer (AO) after considering 2 Sri.Reji Krishnan. the reply and the documents had disallowed the claim made u/s 54F of the Act in respect of the investment made in the second residential house along with other expenditure involved in respect of the purchase

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)

142(1), the working partner of the assessee firm was required to show as to how the income returned (Rs.58,800/-) in the return filed under section 153A was the same (Rs. 58,800/-) as in the return filed under section 139, when clear suppression of sales was detected during the course of search. 7.9 In reply, the firm, through

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)

142(1), the working partner of the assessee firm was required to show as to how the income returned (Rs.58,800/-) in the return filed under section 153A was the same (Rs. 58,800/-) as in the return filed under section 139, when clear suppression of sales was detected during the course of search. 7.9 In reply, the firm, through

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)

142(1), the working partner of the assessee firm was required to show as to how the income returned (Rs.58,800/-) in the return filed under section 153A was the same (Rs. 58,800/-) as in the return filed under section 139, when clear suppression of sales was detected during the course of search. 7.9 In reply, the firm, through

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)

142(1), the working partner of the assessee firm was required to show as to how the income returned (Rs.58,800/-) in the return filed under section 153A was the same (Rs. 58,800/-) as in the return filed under section 139, when clear suppression of sales was detected during the course of search. 7.9 In reply, the firm, through

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)

142(1), the working partner of the assessee firm was required to show as to how the income returned (Rs.58,800/-) in the return filed under section 153A was the same (Rs. 58,800/-) as in the return filed under section 139, when clear suppression of sales was detected during the course of search. 7.9 In reply, the firm, through

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)

142(1), the working partner of the assessee firm was required to show as to how the income returned (Rs.58,800/-) in the return filed under section 153A was the same (Rs. 58,800/-) as in the return filed under section 139, when clear suppression of sales was detected during the course of search. 7.9 In reply, the firm, through

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)

142(1), the working partner of the assessee firm was required to show as to how the income returned (Rs.58,800/-) in the return filed under section 153A was the same (Rs. 58,800/-) as in the return filed under section 139, when clear suppression of sales was detected during the course of search. 7.9 In reply, the firm, through

BABU CHANDRATHIL GEORGE,PALARIVATTOM vs. ITO, NON-CORP WARD-1 (1), COCHIN

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 300/COCH/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Mar 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 250Section 69B

House v. Non-Corp.Ward -1(1) Civil Line Road Cochin. Palarivattom Ernakulam – 682 025. PAN :AGZPG7680D. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : --- None --- Respondent by :Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR Date of Date of Hearing :24.03.2025 Pronouncement : 28.03.2025 O R D E R Per Sandeep Singh Karhail, JM : 1. The assessee has filed the present appeal against the impugned order dated 12/02/2024, passed under section

SRI. ELDHOSE K. VARGHESE,MUVATTUPUZHA vs. THEDCIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, appeals for assessment year 2006-07 to 2008-09 and 2010-11 are allowed while the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2009-10, 2011-12 and 2012-13 are partly allowed

ITA 261/COCH/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Oct 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri P. K. Bansal & Shri George George K.

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 234A

House, Central Circle-1, Mekkadambu – P.O. Ernakulam. Muvattupuzha. PAN:AAFPE 4655 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri T. M. Sreedharan Respondent by Shri Sudhanshu Shekhar, CIT, D.R. Date of hearing 27/09/2017 Date of pronouncement 04/10/2017 ORDER PER P. K. BANSAL, V.P. All these appeals have been filed by the assessee against the consolidated order of CIT(A) dated 31/03/2016

MRS. THANKAMANI VARADARAJULU,KOTTAYAM vs. THE DCIT,CEN-CIRCLE-2, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, appeals of the assesses are allowed

ITA 374/COCH/2019[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Sept 2019AY 2002-03

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

Section 271(1)

house properties was a pure accidental omission and the assessee was not in receipt of any rent for most parts of the year and at the time of filing the return, this fact was completely overlooked. As a new tax consultant was handling the affairs, on account of dispute in the family, failure to return the income was not intentional

MR.THOMAS DANIEL,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ITO, WARD-4, THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 68/COCH/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Nov 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. No.68/Coch/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15

Section 194ASection 40Section 44A

house property. D. — Profits and gains of business or profession. E. - Capital gains. F. - Income from other sources. ' " D.—Profits and gains of business or profession Profits and gains of business or profession. 28. The following income shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession",- (i) the profits and gains

VIJAYARANI PURUSHOTHAMAN,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 793/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Snr. AR
Section 115Section 143(2)Section 69

section 69 of the Act as unexplained investment. Page 2 of 5 3. That the learned lower authorities erred in law and on facts in not considering the fact that the cash withdrawals are the sources for cash deposits made in the bank accounts. 4. That the learned lower authorities erred in law and on facts in holding that

RAMLA HAMEED,ALAPPUZHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes with the direction that the Assessing

ITA 393/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 48

142 (1) of the act where issued, which were partially complied. Since assessee did not comply fully to the notice issued by the A.O therefore show cause notice was issued, and the assessee partially responded. On further enquiry, the Assessing Officer concluded that the assessee failed to substantiate the cost of construction claimed in the computation of capital gains

SAINABA,KOZHIKODE vs. ITO, WARD 1 & TPS, KANNUR

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

ITA 192/COCH/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sainaba .......... Appellant 152, Sainaba Manziil, Azhiyoor, Vadakara Kozhikode 673309 [Pan: Dgfps0956H] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Wd-1 & Tps, Kannur .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Suresh Kumar C., Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 12.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2025

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kumar C., CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)

house property’. The appellant had not filed the return of income under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for AY 2017- 18. Therefore, the AO issued a notice u/s. 142

THE DCIT, CALICUT vs. M/S.KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST, CALICUT

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

ITA 336/COCH/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Sept 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: S/Shri George George K, Jm & Manjunath. G, Am The Dy Commr Of Income Tax Vs M/S Kunhitharuvai Memorial Central Circle Charitable Trust Kozhikode No.1 Mcc Cross Road Kozhikode 673 001 ( Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 143(2)

142(1) were issued. In response to the notices, the authorized representative for the assessee appeared from time to time and furnished the details as called for. During the course of assessment proceedings, the 1 Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee trust has diverted its funds to the persons as specified u/s 13(3) of the Act, whereby the Trust